School Sports

Michael Foster: What plans she has to extend the provision of school sports co-ordinators.

Phil Sawford: What action she is taking to promote sport in schools.

Tessa Jowell: PE and sport are vital to the Government's view of the development of young people in terms of their health and educational achievement. That is why my Department and the Department for Education and Skills are investing £459 million over the next three years to transform PE and school sport. We have set ourselves the challenging target of taking the percentage of schoolchildren who spend at least two hours a week on high-quality PE and school sport from some 25 per cent. in 2002 to 75 per cent. in 2006. That money will more than treble the number of school sports co-ordinators to 2,400—school sports co-ordinators are the linchpin of the partnerships that drive participation forwards—and will nearly quadruple the number of primary link teachers to 13,500. I shall today place in the Library the initial results of the survey of school sports co-ordinator partnerships that took place at the end of 2002.

Michael Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She will know of my support for Worcestershire county council's bid for a school sports co-ordinator to cover the Worcester city school pyramids, and I hope that her Department will look favourably on that. Does she think that school sports co-ordinators should be concerned with participation in sports, or with the unearthing of talent such as another Beckham, Botham or Paula Radcliffe, or both?

Hon. Members: Both.

Tessa Jowell: In response to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, the answer, which we heard echoing round the Chamber, is that they are intended to do both—to ensure that sport becomes part of every child's life at school and to create the opportunities for children with talent and ambition to progress. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his advocacy of school sport on behalf of his constituents, and I very much hope that there will soon be a partnership in an area near him.

Phil Sawford: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that she is doing to encourage sport in schools, and welcome the £900,000 that is being provided through the new opportunities fund for the Montagu school in my Kettering constituency. The difficulty that we face is that the project requires £1.2 million. Will she look into that and offer some advice on additional funding to ensure that the project can go ahead?

Tessa Jowell: If my hon. Friend would like to write to me, I shall certainly consider the costs of his project. The partnerships are funded at more or less equal cost, but if particular problems are being encountered in his local partnership, we shall of course attempt to solve them.

Julian Brazier: I welcome the extra money, in particular for the development of Canterbury high school as a sports community college. However, will the Secretary of State address the real scandal—the continuing sell-off of school playing fields, which happened under successive Governments and has accelerated under this one?

Tessa Jowell: We have been here before. The hon. Gentleman should know better. It is absolutely not the case that the rate of school playing field sales has increased. Any proposed sale of a playing field has to navigate very tight tests before a decision to allow it to be sold is taken. Whereas under the last Government about 40 playing fields a month were sold, it is now no more than a trickle, and they are sold only where there is no sporting case for keeping them.

Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made a fair point. If the Government's commitment to sport in schools is "second to none", to use the Secretary of State's words, why have 115 major school playing fields been sold off in the past four years?

Tessa Jowell: Because in many cases, new facilities have replaced those playing fields. When we last debated the matter, I made the Government's commitment clear: more than £1 billion from the Government and the lottery will be invested in facilities for sport over the next three years. The Government are therefore putting their money where their commitment is: into the development of community facilities for children and the wider community.

Gate Studios, Elstree

Claire Ward: What representations she has received on the listed building status of the Gate Studios in Elstree; and if she will make astatement.

Kim Howells: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport received 10: nine in favour of listing, and one against.

Claire Ward: I am disappointed in English Heritage's decision. Its judgment is flawed in this case. The Gate studios have the oldest surviving sound stage of its type in the country. It dates from 1928 and has remained unaltered since it was erected. It played an important part in the British film industry. Of course, Elstree and Borehamwood constitute a major part of film and television in this country.
	English Heritage has not examined the case properly. I ask my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reconsider and ascertain whether it is possible, on the grounds of the rarity of the sound stage, to get English Heritage to list it.

Kim Howells: English Heritage assessed the Gate Studios complex in 2001 and advised that it did not fulfil the criteria for listing. After careful consideration of the evidence, my right hon. Friend decided to accept English Heritage's advice. However, she has suggested that she is happy to reconsider whether to add the building to the statutory list if further new evidence of architectural significance is sent to her.

National Museums (Free Entry)

Helen Southworth: What assessment she has made of the impact of free entry to national museums.

Tessa Jowell: In the first year—2001–02—of free admission, visitors to national museums that previously charged increased by more than 5 million; a growth of 70 per cent. That resounding success has been mirrored in all the regions that have sponsored museums. In the north-west, visitors to sponsored museums increased by 74 per cent. to almost 2 million.

Helen Southworth: I thank my right hon. Friend for that welcome news. People throughout the country appreciate the increase in visitors to national museums. What further steps does she intend to take to ensure equity of access for all social groups in the country and in the regions, so that people in Warrington get the same benefit and opportunity as people in Westminster to enjoy the wealth of our national museums?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend asks an important question, which represents the next stage of access to museums. The answer is in two parts. First, we want to ensure that museums are more open and inviting to people from a wide range of backgrounds—wider than the groups that have perhaps traditionally visited our museums. Early figures show some success in that. Museums will be encouraged to be more open through the terms of their funding agreement. That links to their increasingly important educational role. Secondly, I hope that a new contract between national and regional museums will lead to much greater co-operation and sharing of skills, thus improving the quality of what is on offer, sharing collections and making regional museums even more inviting to the widest range of people.

Patrick Cormack: That is all very well, but as one who commends the Secretary of State on free entry, I draw her attention to the gross underfunding of some of our museums, such as the British Museum. Will she deal with acquisition grants? Does she know that many of our great national galleries and museums are unable adequately to fund purchases?

Tessa Jowell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises the progress that has been made. Every one of our national museums and galleries will from next year receive a further increase in its funding, including the British Museum. Of course, every cultural institution—indeed, almost every part of our national life—could do with more money, but what we have done in the six years since we came back into power in 1997 is to increase year on year the amount of money available to museums and galleries. That is linked to the incredibly popular policy of free entry, ensuring that the treasures in our national museums and galleries are truly enjoyed by all.

Hugo Swire: The House will know that I have an interest in this matter. Given the Secretary of State's continuing refusal to allow our national museums to choose whether they charge or not, thus denying them an extremely useful potential source of funding, will she undertake to review the museums' acquisitions grants on a year-by-year basis, to enable them to participate in the increasingly expensive and competitive international art market, and to help to save treasures of national importance from going abroad?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman will know—or perhaps he does not, in which case I will tell him—that paintings to the value of some £35 million have been gifted to museums and galleries as part of the special scheme that allows the gift of pictures to be offset against inheritance tax. That is an important way of renewing and refreshing the collections. Our museums and galleries also go out to private sponsors and benefactors in the private sector. This is an area in which the Government can make an enormously important commitment, and our top priority is to ensure that our museums and galleries are free at any time to anybody who wants to visit them. Our approach contrasts with that of the Conservative party, which introduced charges and saw a collapse in the number of people who could afford to go and enjoy those paintings.

Lottery Grant Distribution

Bob Spink: What action she is taking to improve access to lottery grants for constituencies in the lower quartile of distribution.

Richard Caborn: The Government have asked lottery distributors to ensure that all parts of the country have access to funding, and they have recently introduced a number of schemes to target funding to areas of need.

Bob Spink: Given that lottery sales are continuing to fall—I understand that they fell by 5 per cent. last month—I think that that is a complacent answer. Ninety five per cent. of constituencies receive more in lottery grants than Castle Point, although that figure is improving since my re-election because I am fighting for a better share for my constituency. Simply to bring Castle Point up the level of the average constituency, however, the Minister would need to give Benfleet, Hadleigh and Canvey Island some £13,700,000. Will he now review the distribution rules, stop funding controversial and political groups and schemes that command very little public support, and use more common sense—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Richard Caborn: I was going to try to be extremely helpful to the hon. Gentleman when I came to the Dispatch Box this afternoon. Indeed, I have asked my officials to write to him, so that he can come and have discussions with them, because the underlying problem in his constituency is that people there are not making the applications for lottery funding. The average number of awards to each constituency is about 150, but the figure for the hon. Gentleman's constituency is only 60. That is because only a very small number of applications has been made. That is a problem that we have in a number of constituencies, and part of our targeting relates to that. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are having discussions with the distributors, and we are putting on a roadshow to try to ensure that, where people need assistance in making applications to the lottery, it is forthcoming. I have asked my officials to write to the hon. Gentleman, to help him and his constituents to get more money from the lottery.

Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend not accept, however, that many areas of the country are very dependent on such grants, particularly for the provision of play spaces and sports facilities for children? In an age of declining lottery revenues, might it perhaps become necessary for the Government to be more proactive, to ensure that all children have somewhere to play?

Richard Caborn: I agree, but let us keep the thing in proportion. Ours is probably the most successful lottery in the world, and it has returned billions to good causes. We have conducted two reviews in the recent past, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will report to the House later this year on a further review. We have tried to ensure that targeting is both fair and transparent. I take on board what my hon. Friends have said, but I hope they will acknowledge that lottery distribution has been both fair in terms of capital and revenue, and fair to the poorer parts of the United Kingdom.

John Whittingdale: Have not disadvantaged groups benefited particularly from community fund grants? Such grants are now harder to obtain because lottery sales are falling. That is due particularly to a growing belief that the lottery is no longer properly independent, but is being used to support the Government's spending programmes rather than the original good causes. If the community fund is to be swallowed by the new opportunities fund, is there not a real danger that local voluntary and charitable organisations will lose out once again?

Richard Caborn: Not at all. Our review has been conducted in concert with wide consultation to ensure that lottery moneys are targeted on the place of need. That is what the British public broadly want. Research and opinion polls have established that they are satisfied with the targeting of the new opportunities fund. Had it not been for the NOF, indeed, the hon. Gentleman's constituency would not have received the largest single grant—amounting to just under £1 million—for a healthy living centre. I am sure he will acknowledge that the centre has been very successful.

John Whittingdale: The new opportunities fund is already taking the biggest share of lottery proceeds, and it operates under the direct instruction of the Secretary of State. Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that if the community fund and the NOF are merged, the resulting body will not have to take its orders from the Government but will be able to operate on a properly independent basis?

Richard Caborn: Very much so. That is being dealt with in the current discussions. But it is a bit rich coming from the hon. Gentleman, who, along with his colleagues, has constantly attacked the community fund in the recent past.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman that transparency and targeting will continue to accord broadly with what the British people want, as they have under the new opportunities fund. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw my Department's attention to any case that he believes has involved political bias, will he please raise it in specific rather than general terms?

West End Theatre

Chris Bryant: What plans she has to promote West End theatre.

Kim Howells: There have been no recent meetings between Ministers and the Society of West End Theatre—or SWET, as it calls itself. We have received copies of letters sent by the society to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Mayor of London's office expressing its concern about the deteriorating physical state of the west end. I understand that the society has been told that if it has a specific request to the DCMS, or if we can assist in liaison with other Departments, we will help in any way we can; but to date no such request has been made.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend will know that literally thousands of people travel to London every year from his constituency, from my constituency and, indeed, from the United States of America, primarily—sometimes solely—to visit the west end theatres. They see some wonderful shows, but because 37 of London's theatres are either Victorian or Edwardian, they must see them in terrible buildings whose seats were built for backsides of the Victorian rather than the modern era—indeed, rather than for Americans. [Hon. Members: "Or Soames!"] The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) clearly concurs with that.
	Moreover, many of the bars are dingy and overpriced, and have not seen a lick of paint since Oscar Wilde was last there. Is it not time we bashed some heads together to make sure that more investment goes into those theatres, so that everyone can enjoy going to a west end show?

Kim Howells: As long as only heads will be bashed together, I do not mind.
	My hon. Friend is right. It has been calculated that the west end theatres are worth £1 billion to the United Kingdom economy: they are a very important asset. I am not sure about the size of seats—

Nicholas Soames: All right. Steady.

Anne McIntosh: Moving rapidly off seats, may I ask whether the Minister has done an assessment of what the implications of easier access for the disabled will be not just for theatres in the west end but for theatres and cinemas up and down the country?

Kim Howells: I understand that it has been calculated that it will cost about £200 million to refurbish leading theatres in the west end, including making access much easier for disabled people, but a big survey is being done by the Society of London Theatre, which has promised to come back to us to talk to us about what the costs are likely to be and about the way we may be able to help to ensure that those costs can be met.

Glenda Jackson: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the health of west end theatres, indeed all British theatres, depends on encouraging a new generation of dramatists? Will he therefore have speedy discussions with the Association of London Government, which I understand is threatening to withdraw funding from the Royal Court's young playwright scheme, as well as from other theatrical venues across the whole of London?

Kim Howells: I will certainly pass on the message to the Minister for the Arts. I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Film Council is putting aside a very large amount of money in order that we can help in the development of film scripts. There is agreement that we need to do much more to support the development of scripts in theatres as part of that big project.

Malcolm Moss: Is it any surprise that west end theatre is currently going through one of its worst financial downturns, what with the failing tube system, dramatically rising street crime, uncertainty about the implications of the Licensing Bill, central London becoming inaccessible because of roadworks and the preparations for congestion charging? How are theatregoers supposed to get to the theatre and home without hassle and in safety? Is it not time that the Government addressed the crucial issues for inner London—decaying transport infrastructure, rising crime and antisocial behaviour?

Kim Howells: That was a wonderful piece of fiction. The situation is not as bad as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I know that he has a political point to make and that he has to talk down whatever success there is in the economy, but this year is likely to be the first year in British history in which more than 12 million people will pay to go to London theatres. That is a great achievement. He should not talk them down. He should celebrate that fact.

Music/Gun Crime Link

Andrew Selous: What recent representations she has received about possible links between some types of music and gun crime.

Kim Howells: My Department has received a number of representations from members of the public and other interested parties following my comments on some gangsta rap lyrics. Those representations have been both supportive and critical.

Andrew Selous: What consideration is given to the licensing of those radio stations that continue to play a significant amount of music whose lyrics glamorise gun violence?

Kim Howells: God forbid that we should have any influence over what people can or cannot put on the radio. The most important consideration of all is that politicians should keep their sticky fingers out of such decisions. I do, however, share the hon. Gentleman's belief that there should be a public debate about those issues and that the industry should think about doing anything to help to tackle the glamorisation of gun culture and the misogyny in some lyrics that I have heard over the years and criticised. I am prepared to debate that issue anywhere.
	The most shameful thing of all is the way in which, from some liberal quarters—the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) should not panic about this—we are getting an incredibly condescending analysis, as if it does not matter what people write and sing; those analysts say that the words do not matter and are merely a reflection of poverty. There were very poor communities in this country in the 1920s and 1930s. They did not resort to those kinds of lyrics or to that kind of gun culture. We have a duty in the House to hold the line against the spread of guns and of gun culture.

Diane Abbott: The Minister will be aware that the Hackney and Tottenham areas have the highest levels of gun crime in the country. I take this issue very seriously, and although I agree with him that the lyrics of these songs are deplorable, dreadful, misogynistic, homophobic and the rest of it, he needs to be careful about confusing symptoms with underlying causes. He also needs to be aware that middle-aged people down the ages have fulminated against the music of younger people, and that that is exactly why younger people sometimes frame their culture in the way that they do. My Hackney constituents hear of some form of shooting in a club, street or residential area every weekend, and they want Ministers to pay attention to the underlying issues, which are tackling educational underachievement in school, more promotion of sport and action on gun traffickers. Let us beware of the easy option—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question was far too long.

Kim Howells: I very much agree with a lot of what my hon. Friend says, but she will doubtless agree with me that sometimes, we have to take decisions about whom and what we are going to support on this issue. If we do not say these things, the assumption is sometimes made that such lyrics should be accepted and are a valid expression of a community. I do not believe that that is true, and we are on a very slippery slope if we believe otherwise. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that such lyrics and images do not turn people into murderers, but they do coarsen our sensibilities as a society, and we should be very wary of that, because it leads to some very dangerous places.

Pete Wishart: Given the build-up of guns in the Gulf just now, it would certainly be interesting to know what type of music George Bush is listening to. Does the Minister agree that governmental disapproval will only act as a recruiting sergeant for this music, and ensure its increasing popularity among young people?

Kim Howells: No, I do not agree. Last year, 98 people died in this country as a result of gun crime, and 580 were very seriously injured. The hon. Gentleman seems to want to make quips to the effect that we cannot really address this issue because there is about to be a war. That is the most facile, condescending nonsense I have ever heard, and the hon. Gentleman should have the guts to stand up against such lyrics and say what he believes. Doing so would probably earn him a good deal more respect than will coming out with such parallels.

Angela Eagle: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to acknowledge that hip-hop and rap music also contain lyrics that condemn gun violence? Will he acknowledge, for example, Grandmaster Flash's seminal record "The Message", which preached against gun violence, Ms Dynamite's lyrics and the work of Missy Elliott? So there is a great deal of good, as well as some bad things, and I should not like the House to get the reputation for being fuddy-duddy and not actually listening to the lyrics of rap and hip-hop, some of which can be very inspiring.

Kim Howells: I agree entirely—having three children aged 26, 18 and 14, I have had no choice but to listen to gangsta rap.

European Capital of Culture (Birmingham Bid)

Richard Burden: What assessment she has made of Birmingham's bid to become European capital of culture 2008.

Richard Caborn: As my hon. Friend knows, Birmingham is one of six cities on the shortlist that was recommended by an independent advisory panel, and which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last autumn. The others are Bristol, Cardiff, Liverpool, Newcastle-Gateshead and Oxford. We will await the panel's further advice and recommendations before reaching a conclusion.

Richard Burden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that Bill Clinton visited Birmingham for the G8 summit during his presidency, and that when he was more recently asked to comment on Birmingham's bid to be the capital of culture, he said:
	"The buildings, the art, the use of the water—it is an extraordinary jewel of a city, and one that I think is not very well known outside the UK. So I think if the . . . designation came, firstly it would be well deserved and secondly it would give Birmingham some of the recognition around the world that I would like to see it get."
	May I ask my right hon. Friend to agree with that assessment?

Richard Caborn: Whether I agree with it or not is probably irrelevant; indeed, those remarks ought to be sent to the panel that is making the judgment, and which will be advising the Secretary of State. However, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will send to that panel a copy of Hansard when it is published tomorrow.

Derek Wyatt: Given the success of the European city of culture bid, is there any reason why we cannot have a UK city of culture every year, to attract more internal tourism from within the UK?

Richard Caborn: We will consider that. The panel has said on a number of occasions that the industrial cities of the UK are going through a significant renaissance and becoming some of the leading cities of Europe in the 21st century. We ought to encourage that process, and we have done so by using the good offices of Bradford to develop the cities that failed to get on to the shortlist. We shall take my hon. Friend's point on board and respond in the future.

Olympic Bid

Nick Palmer: What discussions she has had on the financing of the costs of an Olympicbid.

Jonathan Djanogly: When she last met the Prime Minister to discuss hosting the 2012 Olympics.

Tessa Jowell: I have had many discussions about the Olympics within Government and with potential stakeholders, including the National Lottery Commission, Camelot, major interests in the City of London, the Association of London Government, the Mayor of London, the CBI and the Governor of the Bank of England. A prerequisite of Government support for any bid for 2012 will be to ensure that, unlike previous bids, the finances are sound and the liability for underwriting in the event of overspend is agreed at the outset.

Nick Palmer: I understand that the bid would produce substantial benefits in terms of improved infrastructure for London, but Nottingham taxpayers feel that we have done our bit for London's infrastructure in continuing to fund the previous Government's millennium dome. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that taxpayers outside London will not be required to underwrite the bid?

Tessa Jowell: I understand my hon. Friend's feelings, and it is for that reason that we are looking at two sources in developing the potential funding package for an Olympic bid: the lottery, and a new Olympic game; and a precept on London, in clear recognition that London will be the principal beneficiary, but that London must pay. In the event of a bid for London, it would be our aim to ensure that, through lottery investment, facilities were developed around the country, particularly training camps that athletes would need in advance of the games to acclimatise. We must make sure that as many events as possible are held in different parts of the country, and that lottery investment funds facilities that will benefit communities after the Olympics.

Jonathan Djanogly: So many other countries are jumping at the highest levels to have the privilege of hosting the 2012 Olympics. Why are our Government equivocating and not getting on with it? The Olympics would be a massive opportunity for our country and the stimulus for improving infrastructure in London.

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman would be among the first of a chorus to castigate the Government if we walked into this without being absolutely clear on the financial liabilities. Germany is still contemplating whether to bid, as is Paris, and there may well be a bid from Moscow that has not yet been announced. Cities take increasingly seriously the decision to bid. We must make sure that if we bid, win and stage the games, we are not left with years and years of debt, as so many Olympic cities have been in the past.

Dave Watts: Will the Secretary of State assure me that if the bid were to go ahead, deprived communities such as St. Helens and many in the north-west would not be deprived of the resources they need?

Tessa Jowell: That is an extremely important question. In assessing whether to bid, we are considering ways of ensuring that existing programmes, such as the investment, through the lottery, in school support for deprived communities and other parts of the country to which I referred earlier, is not put at risk by a decision to bid for and, therefore, to fund the staging of the Olympics. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we very much want to preserve that discipline.

Nick Harvey: Does the Secretary of State accept that 2012 is the last realistic chance for a London Olympics? Land in the capital is at such a premium that none will be available the next time that Europe has the chance to stage the games. Does she agree that London stands a good chance of winning a bid for 2012, so would not future generations think that the Government had been extremely timid if the bid did not go ahead due to lack of Government backing?

Tessa Jowell: No, it would not be the last chance for London, although it would probably be the last chance to use the sites in Stratford, which are currently available but which, after 2012, are likely to have been sold off and used for some other purpose. It is not the last chance but it is a good opportunity, given the likelihood—although not the certainty—of the games coming to Europe in 2012. All those factors weigh heavily on the Government's decision. Incidentally, I hope that, if the Government decide to bid, every party in the House will sign up to that wholeheartedly, and that we can have a suspension of the usual hostilities of cross-party politics.

Gareth Thomas: Is the real reason that we should bid not that it would be a great festival of sport—even though that would certainly be one benefit—but the huge benefits to our economy? Is it not the case that Australia benefited to the tune of about £3 billion of extra spending on tourism and that the Spaniards benefited from net investment of about £11 billion? Is not that the real reason why an Olympic bid should go ahead?

Tessa Jowell: No. I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The case for bidding for and hosting the Olympics is not a value-for-money, economic one. If we decide to bid for and host the Olympics, we do so because as a proud country we want to host the greatest sporting event in the world.

John Greenway: The need for certainty about costs and resources is understandable and we support the Secretary of State on that. However, does she recognise that the British Olympic Association needs an urgent decision from the Government? Will she recommend support for a bid to the Prime Minister? Who in the Government will take charge of the bid? If the bid is successful, preparations for 2012 would span three Parliaments, so I agree with the right hon. Lady that all-party support is vital. May I suggest that she consider setting up a cross-party ministerial group so that the Government and the Opposition can each play their part in achieving success for Britain and the Olympic movement?

Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those questions and shall deal with his third point first. Securing cross-party support throughout what will be a long process is critical. We must show that the Government of the United Kingdom are four-square behind a bid and that there is no risk that it becomes prey to party politics. We shall certainly want to look into the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Furthermore, as the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity, with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, to examine the Arup report in full, I hope that he appreciated that.
	Matters relating to the machinery of Government are for the Prime Minister and will be dealt with when any decision is taken to support a bid. I have made my view clear at the Dispatch Box: there is a strong sporting case for a bid. My Cabinet colleagues, whose principal responsibility is not sport, also recognise that. However, the decision must be signed up to for the whole Government because there are implications for the whole of Government. In July, the BOA has to submit its indication of bid and we shall ensure that a decision is taken well before then.

Local Radio

Anne Begg: What measures she will put in place to ensure that deregulation of local radio ownership does not undermine the local character of radio stations.

Kim Howells: Clause 302 of the Communications Bill, currently being considered by the House, will impose a duty on Ofcom to ensure that local sound broadcasting services contain local content and retain the character of local radio. Ofcom is required to draft, publish and maintain a code, giving guidance on local content and character and to have regard to the code when carrying out its functions in relation to local sound broadcasting services.

Anne Begg: My hon. Friend knows that I have already raised my fears with regard to the loss of local identity in television stations, so he will not be surprised that I am asking him about local radio. My own local radio station—Northsound in Aberdeen—does a wonderful job in reflecting the local culture and in supporting and promoting north-east culture over the airwaves. Does my hon. Friend agree that the loss of that very essence, which makes a local radio station local, would be a tragedy and that the last thing that we want is a lot of local radio stations that all sound the same?

Kim Howells: Yes, I could not agree more. To be fair to all the operators of local radio stations, I should say that they understand full well that their biggest pulling power for audiences is precisely their localness. It is entirely possible for the radio station owners to get together with Ofcom to draw up a code that will bring together the best ideas in the industry about strengthening localness. We put a great deal of stress on that in the Bill, and our proposals have had a favourable reception. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely vital to preserve and enhance that localness not only for the service of the community, but because of its great pulling power for audiences.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Proxy Voting

Mike Gapes: What plans the Electoral Commission has to stop abuse of proxyvotes.

Peter Viggers: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. A. J. Beith), who normally answers for the Speaker's Committee, apologises for not being in the Chamber this afternoon. He is attending the funeral of our former parliamentary colleague, Richard Wainwright. I have been asked to reply.
	The Electoral Commission is examining the use of proxy voting as part of its current review of the law and practice in relation to absent voting generally. The commission plans to publish its final report and recommendations in April this year.

Mike Gapes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. However, before the commission publishes its final report, will it give some attention to events that took place in my constituency in July last year, when there were 400 proxy votes in a single ward in a council by-election? I have to say—I can say it here very clearly—that there are very strong suspicions that many elderly people gave their proxy votes to individuals who then did not cast those proxy votes in the way that those people would have wished if they had known what they were doing. Can we deal with the proxy vote problem once and for all? Now that we have good availability of postal votes, is it not time that we scrapped the possible abuse and intimidation of people via the proxy vote system, got rid of proxy votes and used postal votes instead?

Peter Viggers: The commission has no power to investigate specific allegations of electoral abuse or fraud. Any such allegation should be referred to the police. However, the commission is interested in gathering more evidence about the extent and scale of electoral abuses in the United Kingdom and intends to fund research in that area in the coming year. If the hon. Gentleman would care to make representations to the Electoral Commission, I am sure that they would be well received.

Anne Begg: I wish to disagree with the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) because a large proportion of people in my constituency work in the oil industry. They work offshore on a two-week-on, two-week-off rota. Sometimes they work three weeks on, three weeks off; or they work abroad for large parts of the year. In those circumstances, postal voting is not practical, especially as we still have fairly short notice of when elections will be held; so may I make a plea that proxy voting remain an option for people who cannot be present to vote on the day?

Peter Viggers: Of course, if we were to rely entirely on postal voting, there may be circumstances in which a voter who is resident overseas might find it difficult or even impossible to register to vote within the time limit, so the hon. Lady makes a very fair point.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Open Spaces and Greenfield Land

Simon Hughes: What is the policy of the Church Commissioners for preserving open spaces and green field land in their ownership.

Stuart Bell: The commissioners have in place an environmental policy for their rural estates. Their primary responsibility is towards their beneficiaries, the serving and retired clergy of the Church of England. However, they are careful to balance that against the need for responsibility towards the environment.

Simon Hughes: Will the Second Church Estates Commissioner ask his colleagues to pay particular attention to a park just over the water called Archbishops park, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)? She, I and many other people have a major concern that the Church may be pursuing the wrong course. The Church is the freeholder. Will the hon. Gentleman try to make sure that the Church negotiates that that park can remain a public park for the foreseeable future, and give a lease to the local authority, or to somebody else willing to manage it as it would wish, so that it can be protected, and that there is no risk of it being developed, built on or sold off.

Stuart Bell: I am glad to say that I anticipated the hon. Gentleman's question, and I have already made the inquiries that he would wish me to make. Lambeth borough council manages the park, and, having security of tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, can continue to occupy unless the commissioners require it for their own occupation or redevelopment. The commissioners do not have plans to redevelop the park, which is zoned in the unitary plan as an open space, and are therefore seeking to agree a new lease.

Kate Hoey: Further to the inquiries that my hon. Friend has made, although we are grateful for them, it would be helpful if he would return to the issue. The reality is that the Commissioners are not prepared to negotiate the lease for any longer than 15 years. That is hopeless when it comes to bringing in other money from other agencies, which we want to do to enhance and improve that park. We must ask for the situation to be clarified so that, with the Church Commissioners, we can move forward to keep that park in its current use and to improve it for the next 115 years.

Stuart Bell: I am happy to say that I also anticipated my hon. Friend's question—[Interruption.] If one asks the question, one gets the answers. Lambeth borough council has sought a term of lease—given the latent value of the site, should it cease to be zoned as an open space—but the commissioners are unable to grant it. However, dialogue between the two parties is ongoing, and I will make sure that the commissioners have heard what my hon. Friend has said.

Rents

Paul Flynn: What changes have taken place in the total rents received from church land over the past three years.

Stuart Bell: The average decrease in rents reviewed in the last three years was 15 per cent., 11 per cent. and 5 per cent. respectively.

Paul Flynn: The commissioners have generously decreased or frozen the rents for many of their rural tenants in anticipation of reductions in income that, in the main, did not take place. At the same time, they meanly introduced market rents to the Octavia Hill estate: 1,600 dwellings that have been used for more than a century to provide fair rents and good-value homes to people on low and average incomes. Have the commissioners got their priorities right?

Stuart Bell: The commissioners, as important landlords, are very concerned about their farmers and their tenants. All tenants have been encouraged to contact either the commissioners' property department or their local managing agents if they are in financial difficulties. All cases will be looked at individually. That could result, for example, in abatements of rental payments, which could be delayed interest-free. On the more specific point that my hon. Friend makes, I will be glad to take up individual cases on his behalf.

John Bercow: How many individuals or organisations have been evicted for non-payment of rents during the period in question?

Stuart Bell: It is a pertinant point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I am not aware of anyone having been evicted on the question of non-payment of rent.

Music Scholarship

Michael Fabricant: How much the Church Commissioners have provided for the promotion of the scholarship of music in churches and cathedrals in the last five years.

Stuart Bell: The Commissioners have made grants, under section 23 of the Cathedrals Measure 1999, for stipends and administrative costs. These may be used, for example, to pay an organist's wage, but the commissioners do not hold detail on how they are spent.

Michael Fabricant: The English choral tradition is admired throughout the world for its scholarship and its performances. It is unique; it does not exist in continental Europe or north America. However, it will die unless additional funding is found. Without such funding the likes of William Walton and Benjamin Britten would never have learned their skills in the English writing of music. What further steps can the hon. Gentleman and the commissioners take to ensure that this great and noble tradition does not end in this century?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reference to the musical works of our churches. He will be aware that 42 cathedrals and 16,000 parish churches belong to the Church of England. The majority of them put on regular musical and dramatic events. At one and the same time, such events enhance the churches' community focus and, as he has said, extend their outreach and generate vital revenue towards the running and repair costs of the buildings.
	On the point about additional funding, the Church Commissioners and the wider Church welcome the Government's tabling of an amendment that will obviate the need for cathedrals and church halls to pay licensing fees.

Historic Churches Preservation Trust

Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the effect of changes in the landfill tax credits regime on funding for the Historic Churches Preservation Trust.

Stuart Bell: The trust does not receive any money from the landfill tax credits scheme. However, an estimated £1 million from the scheme goes toward the repair of churches that qualify through their geographical proximity to landfill sites, and another estimated £1 million is administered by county historic church trusts. If this money were to be removed, it seems clear that the number of claims upon the funds of the Historic Churches Preservation Trust would increase.

Graham Brady: What representations have the Church Commissioners made to the Government with regard to the potential £2 million loss? Has the hon. Gentleman been given any assurances that it can be defrayed or met by other funds?

Stuart Bell: Discussions with the Government are ongoing and, when I have any positive response to give, I will be glad to give it to the hon. Gentleman.

Patrick Cormack: As a trustee of the Historical Churches Preservation Trust, may I urge the hon. Gentleman to treat the matter as one of real urgency? If the £2 million is lost, the trust will not be able to make it up in its entirety. It is therefore crucial that the money remain.

Stuart Bell: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is a trustee and a very vocal supporter of the trust's work. I am also well aware of the role played by the trust in preserving the nation's churches. I understand that it gave financial help amounting to £1.5 million to 326 churches in 2001. That effort is greatly appreciated.

Licensing Bill

Andrew Selous: What recent representations he has received from clergy concerning the Licensing Bill as it relates to church premises.

Stuart Bell: I have received no direct representations on the Licensing Bill, but the hon. Gentleman will have heard that the Church of England has warmly welcomed the Government's tabled amendment to the Bill that ensures that places of worship will be exempt from the requirements for public entertainment licensing. At the same time, the Government propose to exempt churches and village halls from the need to pay licensing fees.

Andrew Selous: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer, but can he assure the House that he will keep a very careful watch on this issue so that churches such as All Saints in Leighton Buzzard in my constituency, which regularly use concerts as a means of fund raising to preserve their fabric, do not have future cause to worry?

Stuart Bell: I have heard the hon. Gentleman's point. He will be pleased to learn that the Bishop of London, who took up this cause in the other place, was heard by the Government. They have tabled an amendment and we welcome that. The Church also welcomes it, but we will follow the amendment through all its Committee proceedings and on to the Floor of the House.

Church Repairs (VAT)

Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received on the impact of VAT on church repairs.

Stuart Bell: The Churches main committee and the Church of England's VAT group, having worked tremendously hard on the matter, continue to press for change with other Government Departments and with colleagues in Europe as the European Commission reviews the sixth VAT directive.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of my ongoing campaign in that regard. In the interim, until VAT is reduced, will he bring the regrettable administration in applying for grants to make up for the shortfall in VAT reduction to the attention of the Chancellor?

Stuart Bell: The Church appreciates the gesture made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in giving a derogation from payment of the full VAT on church repairs. He listened receptively to the concept that that should be continued in the next Budget. We appreciate his continued efforts on behalf of the Church until the sixth directive is properly revised.

Iraq

Tony Blair: May I first tell the House that I have sent messages of condolence to President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon following the break-up of the Columbia space shuttle on Saturday? This was a tragedy not just for the seven astronauts and their families, but for their countries and all who value space exploration. I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in expressing our sadness and our sympathy.
	With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on my visit to Washington.
	In addition to Iraq, which I shall come to in a moment, President Bush and I discussed the middle east peace process, Afghanistan and global poverty and development. On the first, we agreed on the vital necessity of making progress based on the twin-state solution: Israel confident of its own security and a Palestinian state that is viable. I am convinced there is now a real wish across the world to push this process forward and I hope that we can take further steps on this issue soon. I believe it is of fundamental importance, not just to peace in the middle east, but to peace throughout the world.
	But the immediate focus of the visit was Iraq. Over the past week, in addition to meeting President Bush, I have seen Prime Minister Aznar, President Mbeki, Prime Minister Berlusconi and Prince Saud. Today, I have spoken to President Chirac. After this statement, I will be speaking to President Putin, and I have also spoken to the Prime Ministers of Turkey, Canada, Greece, Poland, Portugal and Australia. I shall meet President Chirac tomorrow. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with his opposite numbers from countries on the UN Security Council, in the European Union and in the middle east, and will be in New York for UN meetings later this week.
	We are entering the final phase of a 12-year history of the disarmament of Iraq. The duty on Saddam to destroy all his weapons of mass destruction was a central part of the ceasefire agreement at the end of the Gulf war in 1991. In a series of 17 resolutions since then, the UN Security Council has put Saddam under 27 separate and categorical obligations to give full, final and complete declarations on its weapons programmes; to give inspectors unconditional and unrestricted access; to cease the concealment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; and to co-operate fully with the inspectors in the disarmament of all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has consistently flouted these obligations. That is why a sanctions regime has been in place for years against Iraq which, because of the way in which Saddam has applied it, has caused wholly unnecessary suffering for the Iraqi people.
	Last November, the UN Security Council concluded unanimously that Iraq was still, and I quote, "in material breach of UN resolutions." Saddam was given "a final opportunity" to comply with his disarmament obligations. Resolution 1441 imposed on Saddam a duty to give
	"a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems";
	to provide
	"immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted and private access"
	to all people the inspectors wish to interview,
	"in the mode or location"
	of the inspectors' choice; and also to co-operate actively and fully with all the inspectors' demands. Failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of the resolution was said in terms to constitute a further material breach.
	Eight weeks have now passed since Saddam was given his final chance. Six hundred weeks have passed since he was given his first chance. The evidence of co-operation withheld is unmistakable. Saddam has still not answered the questions concerning thousands of missing munitions and tons of chemical and biological agents unaccounted for. Rocket warheads with chemical weapons capacity have been found by the inspectors: they should have been declared. Classified documents of relevance to Iraq's past nuclear programme have been discovered in a scientist's private house: they should have been handed over. Of the first 11 documents specifically requested by the inspectors, only three have been produced. Not a single interviewee has come to an appointment with the inspectors without their so-called official minders.
	As the report we published at the weekend makes clear, and which I placed in the Library of the House, there is a huge infrastructure of deception and concealment designed to prevent the inspectors from doing their job. US Secretary of State Colin Powell will report further to the UN on this on Wednesday. As Dr. Blix, the UN Chief Inspector, reported last week:
	"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament which was demanded of it."
	He said that Iraq's declaration seemed to contain no new evidence; that there are indications that Iraq has weaponised the nerve agent VX, one of the most toxic ever developed; that there are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it has declared; and that the discovery of chemical rocket warheads could be, again I quote, "the tip of an iceberg".
	The situation therefore could not be clearer. There is a duty on Saddam to co-operate fully. At present, he is not co-operating fully. Failure to do so is a material breach of resolution 1441. Should Dr. Blix continue to report Iraqi non-co-operation, a second resolution should be passed confirming such a material breach. President Bush and I agreed that we should seek maximum support for such a resolution, provided, as ever, that seeking such a resolution is a way of resolving the issue, not delaying or avoiding dealing with it at all. I continue to believe that the United Nations is the right way to proceed. There is integrity in the process set out in resolution 1441 and we should follow it.
	We of course discussed the fact that weapons of mass destruction are not the only threat the world faces, and Iraq is not the only country posing a risk in respect of weapons of mass destruction. Over the past few weeks, we have seen powerful evidence of the continuing terrorist threat: the suspected ricin plot in London and Manchester; al-Qaeda experiments in Afghanistan to develop chemical, biological and radiological weapons; the arrests of those linked to al-Qaeda in Spain and France; and further arrests just a few days ago in Italy. What is more, many of these arrests show the terrorist groups actively seeking to use chemical or biological means to cause as much death and injury and suffering as they can. We know too from 11 September that these terrorists have no demands that could ever be negotiated upon, no constraint in terms of finance and numbers to carry out terrorist acts, and no compunction in taking human life.
	At the same time, we know that Iraq is not alone in developing weapons of mass destruction; there are unstable, fiercely repressive states either proliferating or trying to acquire WMD, like North Korea. I repeat my warning: unless we take a decisive stand now as an international community, it is only a matter of time before these threats come together. That means pursuing international terrorism across the world in all its forms. It means confronting nations defying the world over weapons of mass destruction. That is why a signal of weakness over Iraq is not only wrong in its own terms. Show weakness now and no one will ever believe us when we try to show strength in future. All our history, especially British history, points to this lesson. No one wants conflict. Even now, war could be avoided if Saddam did what he is supposed to do. But if, having made a demand backed up by a threat of force, we fail to enforce that demand, the result will not be peace or security. It will simply be returning to confront the issue again at a later time, with the world less stable, the will of the international community less certain, and those repressive states or terrorist groups that would destroy our way of life emboldened and undeterred.
	Even now, I hope that conflict with Iraq can be avoided. Even now, I hope that Saddam can come to his senses, co-operate fully and disarm peacefully, as the UN has demanded. But if he does not—if he rejects the peaceful route—he must be disarmed by force. If we have to go down that route, we shall do all we can to minimise the risks to the people of Iraq, and we give an absolute undertaking to protect Iraq's territorial integrity. Our quarrel has never been with the Iraqi people, but with Saddam.
	Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and the threats that they pose to the world must be confronted. In doing so, this country and our armed forces will be helping the long-term peace and security of Britain and the world.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister spoke about the destruction of the space shuttle Columbia. I join him in sending my deepest condolences to the American and Israeli people. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who died on board.
	I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. I welcome his agreement with President Bush on the middle east peace process. On Iraq, we fully support the UN route, and I hope that a second resolution will be possible. Although it is not a prerequisite for future action, it is highly desirable. Saddam Hussein still has time to cease his non-co-operation, change his attitude and start to disarm himself. However, as Hans Blix indicated, we should not deceive ourselves. The fundamental problem is not a lack of time, but the attitude of Saddam Hussein. I also agree with the Prime Minister that if the international community backs away from dealing with Saddam Hussein now, that will be seen as a green light by every rogue state and terrorist group around the world.
	The Prime Minister quoted Hans Blix. Does he believe that those comments indicate that resolution 1441 has already been materially breached? Last week the Foreign Secretary said that Iraq was already in breach. Does the Prime Minister share his Foreign Secretary's opinion that Saddam is in breach now? Dr. Blix's main concern was that Iraq is not actively co-operating with the weapons inspectors. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is clear from the resolutions that it is not, as some continue to say, for the inspectors to find the weapons; it is for Iraq to account for discrepancies in her weapons declaration and to co-operate fully with the inspectors?
	Secretary Colin Powell will this week reveal US intelligence that will outline the dangers that Saddam Hussein poses to the United States—in particular, how weapons inspectors have been deceived. Many British people, we know, are still anxious about the possible use of military force, and they are entitled, of course, to as much information as possible. Will the Prime Minister publish not only Colin Powell's presentation, but the Government's assessment of that new information? Notwithstanding the information that Downing street published over the weekend, will he also make available any further intelligence especially relevant to the security of the United Kingdom or its citizens? Will his entire Cabinet take that information to the British people to make the case?
	We welcome the letter sent by eight European leaders in support of resolution 1441. Can the Prime Minister confirm reports that France and Germany were not asked to sign it? What reaction has he had from the leaders of France and Germany to the letter? The Prime Minister meets President Chirac tomorrow. Will he remind the President that he was a signatory of 1441, which warns unequivocally that "serious consequences" will follow any violation of the resolution? And after that letter, what assessment has the Prime Minister made of the circumstances under which France would support a second resolution?
	Does the Prime Minister agree that taking a tough stance on Iraq has already yielded results? It has focused the United Nations on taking action to tackle the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; it has secured the entry of inspectors; and it has brought Saddam Hussein under pressure to comply with his international obligations.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that, if and when a second resolution is secured, those who have to date opposed action to disarm Saddam Hussein have a stark choice? They can either back that second resolution, and any military action that follows, or have the courage to admit that they are opposed to military action in any circumstances.
	Saddam Hussein's day of reckoning is fast approaching. Peace or war—the choice is his. Disarm, or face the consequences.

Tony Blair: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his general support. I think that we are in agreement on the main issues.
	With regard to the middle east peace process, I am now more hopeful than I have been for some time that in the medium term we can make progress. I had a very good and constructive set of talks with President Bush on that issue.
	I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman says about resolution 1441. We shall, I am sure, make available Colin Powell's presentation on Wednesday and our assessment of it.
	We issued further intelligence over the weekend about the infrastructure of concealment. It is obviously difficult when we publish intelligence reports, but I hope that people have some sense of the integrity of our security services. They are not publishing this, or giving us this information, and making it up. It is the intelligence that they are receiving, and we are passing it on to people. In the dossier that we published last year, and again in the material that we put out over the weekend, it is very clear that a vast amount of concealment and deception is going on.
	Obviously there are different positions in Europe. But people can come round behind the UN process, because resolution 1441, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly points out, was passed by a unanimous Security Council. The integrity of that process is very clear. There is a duty fully to comply. If Iraq is not fully complying, having been given a final opportunity, a fresh resolution should issue. There is an inexorable logic to that, which will in the end bring people round. If we can do this and manage it through the international community, that will be a huge boost not just for dealing with the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but also for the integrity of the UN.

Charles Kennedy: I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Conservative party, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, in extending our sincere sympathy over all those who were lost as a result of the terrible tragedy in the United States at the weekend. We hope that their families are aware of the heartfelt sense of sympathy that exists internationally.
	With regard to the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon, he is well aware, as we all are in the House, of the extent of public anxiety about the development of events. In particular, an awful lot of people right across the political spectrum and otherwise have a sense that we seem to be hastening into war ahead of events. Will the Prime Minister recognise that over the whole developing history of this matter, going right back to the recall of Parliament last September and the publication of the security services' dossier then, the Government have from time to time been perceived to be issuing mixed messages, not least in recent weeks from the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary? That needs to be said, because that is what people in the country feel.
	The Government have still to make a credible case. That case, for any fair-minded person viewing it, has to be based on credible evidence, which has not so far been forthcoming.
	Would the Prime Minister also acknowledge that the weapons inspectors need time to complete their task; that this Government must, if push comes to shove, be seen to subscribe, as he rightly acknowledged in his statement, to the United Nations route; and that if the Americans decide to take some form of pre-emptive action ahead of the weapons inspectors being able to complete their task, this country will have to be clear cut as to where its sense of allegiance lies? Does it lie with the United Nations route that the Government have rightly prosecuted with full support across all parties in the House, or will it lie with the United States?
	The weapons inspectors are searching for that evidence on behalf of the United Nations and the entire international community. Does the Prime Minister recognise, given his statements over the weekend, that making it appear that war is somehow now inevitable makes it hard for the public to believe that the President of the United States and he are objective about the task in front of the weapons inspectors? If Colin Powell produces on Wednesday this week the hard evidence—the so-called smoking gun—that convinces the Security Council of the need for war, will that not prompt another question? If such evidence is concrete, clear cut and so persuasive, why was it not put in the hands of the weapons inspectors sooner rather than later? Did the Prime Minister express that opinion in his discussions with the President of the United States over the weekend? If not, why not? If the weapons inspectors come back and in due course say that they need more time and request that time, will Britain actively and publicly speak up in their support; or if the Americans decide to take pre-emptive actions come what may, will we side with the United States?
	Finally, did the Prime Minister clarify with the President, and can he now clarify with this House of Commons and the country, the exact command and control structure for the forces that are now being deployed in our name on behalf of Britain in that region?

Tony Blair: First of all, I think that the right hon. Gentleman said that we were hastening into war ahead of events. We have gone through 12 years of this process—12 years in which we have tried to get Saddam to disarm. We then came together last November and passed a resolution saying that there should be one final opportunity. That is hardly hastening into a war. If he does not comply with that UN resolution—he is not complying at the moment—we are not hastening into it ahead of events, but responding to the fact that Saddam has refused point blank, as he has done throughout 12 years, to do what the United Nations has asked him to do.
	As for saying that credible evidence has not been forthcoming that Saddam is in breach of the resolution, the resolution says that he must make a full and honest declaration. I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that a declaration that does not even disclose what has happened to the thousands of munitions and tonnes of nerve, chemical and biological agents that we know were left over from 1999 is full and honest. Does he really believe that a failure even to declare what has happened to that is an honest undertaking and declaration of what has happened? Does he think that the refusal to allow Iraqi experts to be interviewed—a vital part of the inspection process—unless they come with so-called Iraqi minders is acceptable? None of us can be so naive as to think that such people are present merely to offer the odd cup of coffee and comfort.
	If Saddam is carrying on in breach of those obligations, as Hans Blix himself says that he is, that is the credible evidence that he is not co-operating. With the greatest respect, the right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest, when he says that we are not objective, that somehow it is for us to come along and prove that Saddam is a guilty party. No; the United Nations decided that he was in breach of the UN resolutions and he has got to produce the evidence that he is now co-operating fully— and he is not doing so.
	Now that is not simply our view—it is the view of Dr. Blix and the UN weapons inspectors. The right hon. Gentleman says that they should have time to complete their task. Yes, they should, but their task is not to engage in an elaborate game of hide and seek with Saddam whereby the UN inspectors go in and try to find the stuff while he tries to hide it—if they find it, they win; if he hides it, he wins. That is not how the system is supposed to operate. That was how it operated in the 1990s, however, so that a weapons inspections process that was supposed to take weeks ended up taking years. This time, therefore, the resolution—1441—said, "You've got a final opportunity; you've got to make an honest declaration; you've got to co-operate fully with the inspectors." The time that they need, and the time that we need within the United Nations, is the time to make a judgment on whether that co-operation is forthcoming. At present, it is not. All we are saying is that if that does not change, Saddam is continuing to play the game that he has been playing for 12 years, which is unacceptable. That is not a sign of our failing to be objective, but a sign of our failing to be weak in the face of a threat that is posed to us in the world community.
	Finally, I simply say this to the right hon. Gentleman. I know, of course, that there is huge anxiety, and that many criticisms are made of the United States, but it would be quite wrong if we used this issue to try to polarise the United States and the international community. The United States chose to go through the UN process last November, when many people thought that it would not. It was right to do so, and we should carry on through the UN process, but that process should be a way of dealing with this issue once and for all, not of kicking it into the long grass again and avoiding it altogether.

Stuart Bell: The Prime Minister referred to weaponised VX nerve gas agents. Can he recall the time when the IRA went to Libya, purchased weapons of destruction—some of which were intercepted on the high seas—and brought them back to Ireland to wage terrorist attacks? Can he tell the House how he would see a world in which a rogue state has VX nerve agents, toxin gases and anthrax, and can link up with worldwide terrorists? What kind of a world would we then be living in?

Tony Blair: That is why it is so important, as my hon. Friend rightly says, that we regard the issues of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction as linked. The fact is that we know that if the terrorists can get hold of those types of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weaponry, they will do so. That is why it is so important that we take this stand now, to ensure that Iraq disarms itself of weapons of mass destruction at the same time as we pursue international terrorism.

Nicholas Soames: Given the welcome news that the Prime Minister has made some progress on the question of the middle east peace process, and given that he will clearly not wish to go to war without exhausting every single avenue that is open to the international community, will he work with the Americans to determine whether it would be possible for a heads-of-state-level delegation from the Arab League to go to Baghdad to tell Saddam Hussein that he must honour the UN obligations?

Tony Blair: I certainly think that we should use every possible route that we can to achieve our objective without conflict if at all possible. Some of the most interesting discussions that I have had over the past few days have been with representatives from Arab states. Without specifically commenting on what sort of delegation it should be or the exact form that it should take, I have no doubt at all that one aspect of what we do over the next few weeks will be to try to mobilise as much as we can of Arab world opinion in order to take the measures that are necessary to do all that we can to ensure that conflict is genuinely the last resort.

Peter Mandelson: May I ask my right hon. Friend about Iraq's recovery and reconstruction in the event of Saddam forcing war? In addition to the need for political transition, the humanitarian and refugee demands could be immense. Will he outline to the House what preparation is being made for that at the United Nations and by key members of the international community? What structure for reconstruction is being put in place? In terms of donor funding, will Britain join America—and, I think, Switzerland and Canada—in making an early offer of resources for those purposes?

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend is right that we must deal with those vital points. We are in discussion with allies and the United Nations about reconstruction. The Foreign Secretary and I have spoken to the Secretary-General of the United Nations about that. If there is a conflict and Saddam's regime is removed, it is important to give absolute assurances and undertakings to the people of Iraq that we shall deal with any humanitarian consequences. In such circumstances, we must also try to ensure that we move in to help get Iraq back on its feet as quickly as possible. This country is willing to play its part in that with others.

John Wilkinson: Can the Prime Minister say whether he will make allowing the inspectors to use helicopters and overfly the whole of Iraq, apart from the no-fly zones in the north and south of the country, and granting them unfettered access to scientists and individuals who have specific knowledge of the Iraqi regime's weapons programme, pre-conditions of Dr. Blix's return to Iraq?

Tony Blair: It is for Dr. Blix to make the demands that he wants. It is up to him whether he wishes to travel in a specific way or interview specific people. However, the hon. Gentleman's basic point is right. I recommend people to read resolution 1441 again. It could not be clearer. Any demand by the UN inspectors must be acceded to. That is not happening. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, many issues to do with surveillance, interviewing witnesses and unaccounted for material need to be resolved. There is little sign of matters changing. Dr. Blix said that there was no point in continuing unless the inspectors are given the full access that they need and all their demands are met. I agree with that.

Donald Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend fear that Russia, France or China might "unreasonably", in his words, veto a second resolution? Has the US President now agreed to publish the quartet's roadmap for the middle east peace process?

Tony Blair: On the latter point, the timing of the roadmap's publication remains open to question. However, I have no doubt that it should and will be published. I return with more hope of progress on the middle east than I have had for some time.
	On my right hon. Friend's first point, I do not know what other countries' attitude will be, but I am working on the basis that people hold to both the spirit and the letter of resolution 1441. The process has integrity. Saddam has a final opportunity and he must co-operate fully. If he does not, a fresh resolution will be issued. The logic of that will take people along with us, especially when there are further inspectors' reports to come.

John Stanley: Does the Prime Minister agree that although the position with Iraq is serious, the immediate, near-term threat to people in Britain comes from al-Qaeda? Given the huge amount of work that is currently required of the intelligence agencies, special branch and the police to try to uncover the al-Qaeda cells in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will give absolute priority to ensuring that those bodies are fully resourced to do the job while there is still time?

Tony Blair: Yes, of course. Our intelligence services and our police authorities continue to do superb work in rooting out al-Qaeda cells wherever they are. However, we do not simply have a choice of dealing with one or the other. It is important to deal with both—I believe that they are linked—not least because of the signals that we convey about the firmness of our intention.

Gordon Prentice: Like me, many people believe that we are being led by the nose into war. What weight does the Prime Minister give to the emergency resolution that was carried last Thursday by the 44-member Council of Europe, which called for the weapons inspectors to be given time to complete their task and for the imposition of no artificial deadlines?

Tony Blair: I have said that there should be no artificial deadline, but the issue comes down to the question of what the task is that the inspectors are being sent in to do. If their task is to return to what happened in the 1990s, when they stayed there for long periods of time and tried to work their way around Iraqi obstruction, it could take them years to complete it. If, however, their task is to go in there on the basis that Saddam is going fully to co-operate, it will be complete when they make their judgment either that he is doing so—in which case, they can get on and close the matériel down—or that he is not, in which case they do not need to wait months or years. That would be the situation in which, in the words of resolution 1441, there would be a further material breach, because Saddam would not have taken the final opportunity to disarm.
	I must point out to my hon. Friend that Saddam cannot be in any doubt as to what he has to do. It is not a great mystery. I am told that he is calling for all sorts of people to come and visit him and talk to him, but there is no mystery about what he has to do. There is a perfectly well-trodden path in relation to UN inspectors, and it involves making a full declaration. South Africa followed it when it closed down its nuclear weapons programme after the change of regime and the end of apartheid. It called in the inspectors, told them exactly what it had, and allowed them full access to all its witnesses. The whole thing was then shut down in a matter of weeks. That is what can happen. The initial stages of it happened immensely quickly, and it could happen again. If the UN inspectors were saying to us, "Yes, Iraq is doing absolutely everything it can", I would not be standing here making this statement. I am making it not because we are being led by the nose into conflict, but because we have set out a process governed by that UN resolution. That process requires full compliance by Saddam, and he is not fully complying.

Simon Thomas: Will the Prime Minister tell us what the right conditions would be for the use of nuclear weapons, as mentioned by his Secretary of State for Defence? Will he rule out any pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons by either the United Kingdom Government or the United States Government? Will he also say how any use of nuclear weapons in any context could be squared with our commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

Tony Blair: In one sense, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that, because it allows me to make it clear that all that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was doing was repeating the traditional British doctrine relating to nuclear weapons. We have absolutely no plans to use nuclear weapons in respect of Iraq. He was simply repeating the traditional British doctrine, and nothing of an alarmist nature should be read into that.

Terry Davis: What is the Government's best estimate of how many Iraqi civilians will be killed or injured if there is a war?

Tony Blair: We will do all that we possibly can to minimise any civilian casualties. I should say to my right hon. Friend that we have striven hard to avoid the prospect of any casualties at all, precisely by delaying action and allowing the UN process to work. The real casualties in Iraq over the past few years have occurred as a result of Saddam's policies.

Ian Taylor: The Prime Minister is surely right to use the United Nations route and to ensure that that is wholeheartedly behind whatever action is taken. I hope that he will explain to the French President and, indeed, the beleaguered German Chancellor, that the United Nations' credibility depends on facing up to the threats. Nevertheless, for those of us who are still concerned about the thought processes surrounding potential action, will he explain to President Bush that the danger of quickly settling Saddam Hussein could unleash other terrorism as a result of the destabilisation in Iraq and the knock-on effect that that could have in Jordan and possibly Turkey? Other threats could arise, as he mentioned in his statement.

Tony Blair: It is true that we have to approach this in a careful and measured way, which is why we went through the UN process to get the backing of the international community for the demands that we have made on Saddam. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, approached in the wrong way, this could lead to misunderstandings—for example, that this is an attack on Iraq because it is a Muslim country, and all the rest of the propaganda that surrounds these issues. I believe that there is now a clearer understanding—I have certainly found this in my discussions with Arab Heads of State—that this is about enforcing the will of the UN. Done in the right way, and with the right guarantees to the people of Iraq, the whole process of disarmament could be seen as a victory not only for the international community, but for the people of Iraq. I must point out that the consequence of not having disarmed Saddam properly, and of allowing the will of the UN to be flouted over many years, is that we have had to put in place a very tough, punitive sanctions regime. Because of the way in which Saddam has operated it—he need not have done it in the way that he has—it has caused the most terrible misery to the people in Iraq. More than half the population is dependent on the oil-for-food programme.
	I think that in the end people, not least in Iraq, will realise not just that seeing the back of Saddam is good for the peace and security of the world, but that the first beneficiaries will be the people of Iraq.

Linda Gilroy: The Prime Minister has spoken on several occasions about the integrity of the resolution 1441 process and his faith in it. To what extent does he think that the President of the United States shares that understanding? In particular, to what extent does the President agree that bypassing the resolution could undermine the credibility of the United Nations?
	Following his discussions with other world leaders, does the Prime Minister think that they fully understand the importance of consistently following through on resolution 1441?

Tony Blair: I think everyone does. I think that what President Bush was expressing was the thought that a second resolution would be welcome for the reasons that we gave, but also—this is important—the thought that, as we have constantly said, the UN path is the way to resolve this. It is not a way of pushing it off.
	When talking to other world leaders, I found that they did understand that the UN process is important. It is important to deal with it, but it is also important that it should not be seen as a way of avoiding dealing with it. I think that, at the moment at any rate, we have people camped on the right ground. It is our job, and my determination, to make sure that we see the integrity of that process through to the end.

Edward Leigh: Following that last question, may I ask whether there is any difference of opinion, or any difference of emphasis, between the US and UK Governments on the need for—and extreme desirability of—a second UN resolution?

Tony Blair: No, I do not think that there is any difference between us on that. We want a second resolution but, as the President said at our press conference on Friday, it must be the way of ensuring that Iraq is disarmed. I am afraid that in the 1990s resolutions were passed, but increasingly Iraq ceased to take them seriously.
	Before this issue arose in the context of possible military action in Iraq, we were involved for nearly two years in trying to renegotiate the sanctions regime because of Iraq's failure to disarm. This is not an issue that has popped up in the last few months; it is an issue that we have been living with for 12 years.
	Let me also point out to the House and the country that every single day about 2,000 British armed forces personnel are engaged in trying to patrol the no-fly zones, and in other activity associated with the whole problem to do with Iraq. Although this is in the headlines now, it has been there for a long time. The reason why there is a certain impatience is that we must not go back and allow the UN to be used as a way of tricking people into parking the issue and not dealing with it. The determination to take the UN route is there for everyone.

Alice Mahon: May I ask a question about US intelligence? I am sure that the Prime Minister will recall that at the beginning of the Vietnam war the CIA gave false evidence about the Gulf of Tonkin, as it now admits. I remind him that more than 2 million Vietnamese died during that war, and that the chemical weapon used by the US, Agent Orange, is still causing deformed babies to be born. More recently, President Clinton ordered the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. In that instance, US intelligence simply got it wrong.
	Given the history of lying and incompetence on the part of US intelligence, should we really believe Colin Powell on Wednesday when he presents his latest evidence?

Tony Blair: I am not here to answer questions about the Vietnam war. Let me simply point out to my hon. Friend that the Vietnam war and Vietnam itself were never subject to a United Nations resolution. As for the intelligence that has come out about Iraq, I ask my hon. Friend to accept this: never mind US intelligence, never mind British intelligence—the evidence that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and nuclear, is there; it is documented in the UN inspectors' report. I do not believe that the British and American intelligence agencies are not telling us the truth about these things—I think they are right—but we need not rely on that to be worried about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. We need only read the reports, going back for years, about those weapons and their manufacture in Iraq, and the fact that Saddam—uniquely among world leaders—has used them against his own people and against other countries.

David Heath: In his statement, the Prime Minister quite rightly drew attention to the real and present dangers of terrorism. When the former chief of the counter-terrorism operations of the CIA, Vincent Cannistraro, says that
	"a war would be a potent recruiting tool for terrorist groups",
	does he disagree?

Tony Blair: I do, if Mr. Cannistraro means in every set of circumstances. I remember that people said something similar to us when Afghanistan came about. It depends on the circumstances. If we are taking action where we are obviously and clearly enforcing the will of the UN, his view is not right. There is a growing recognition that Saddam is not someone we should be defending. What I have said constantly to people over this issue is that the people who will be most delighted to see the end of Saddam are the people who are his first and primary victims—his own people. In those circumstances, I do not believe that it will recruit people to the cause of terrorism, but I say to the hon. Gentleman honestly that what will recruit people to the cause of terrorism is a belief among these fanatics that the will of the international community is weak, that it does not have the determination to confront these issues, and that, when faced with the challenge, we fail to meet it.

Caroline Flint: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the 12 years for which Saddam Hussein has played cat and mouse with UN resolutions. During those 12 years, many hundreds of Kuwaitis have been lost inside Iraq. Saddam Hussein has given no comfort to their families on whether they are alive or dead today.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely essential that the UN stand by its mandatory resolutions and hold firm, because it is for the good of all of us that that happens?

Tony Blair: Obviously, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The point that she makes about the Kuwaitis, the missing people—there are hundreds of them—is absolutely right. Of course, they have to be added to the thousands of people who have been killed internally by Saddam and to the people who to this day face the most appalling internal oppression, torture and denial of human rights as a result of his regime.

Patrick Cormack: As one who believes that the Prime Minister is giving strong national leadership, which deserves support across the House, may I ask him to say a bit more about the middle east peace process? Does he accept that nothing is better calculated to bring the Arab states on side than seeing that a really determined attempt is being made to resolve the terrible problems that divide Palestine and the Israelis? Will he consider taking another personal initiative, notwithstanding that his last one was snubbed, during the next few, what could be perilous, weeks? [Interruption.]

Tony Blair: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just reminded me, on 10 February there is a follow-up meeting to the one that we had. There has been quite a lot of progress out of that meeting. I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. Incidentally, I also believe—I will choose my words carefully—that the absence of a sense of real progress on the Israel-Palestine issue is a far bigger worry in terms of recruiting people to terrorism than is the pursuit of Iraq over weapons of mass destruction. That is why it is important that we deal with this. I also think that one of the benefits of what has happened in the past few months is that there is consensus internationally on the two-state solution. That is a huge step forward. Everyone now agrees that Israel needs to be recognised by all its neighbours, confident about its own security, and that any Palestinian state must be viable. That is an issue that will be pushed forward, I hope soon.

Jim Knight: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he has done to persuade the United States to remain engaged with the United Nations, but given the apparent inability of France and Germany to be persuaded of the UN route, is that route still viable?

Tony Blair: I am an optimist in pursuit of this. Last summer, there was a certain amount of scepticism as to whether we would achieve the first UN resolution and we did; in the end, we achieved it unanimously. I entirely understand the hesitation and anxiety that have been expressed not just in this country but in other countries. Of course, people do not want us to engage in conflict if we can possibly avoid it. However, what is important is that if it is the case that UN inspectors continue to certify that Iraq is not fully co-operating, there is a logic in that that will bring everyone—I hope everyone—on board. Otherwise, the whole authority of the UN, which we all agree should be upheld, would be undermined.

James Paice: The Prime Minister is absolutely right to stand by the UN resolution and to want to pursue matters through the UN route. In that, he will have the support of the majority of this House, but I am sure that he is as concerned as I am that at the moment he certainly does not have the support of a very large proportion—we know not exactly what—of the British public. One reason is that in the 12 years during which, as he rightly points out, we have been trying to sort out the Iraq situation, the issue of military force has come to a head only since the 11 September tragedy, and a large number of the British people do not yet see the conjunction between the Iraqi situation and international terrorism. What is he going to do to explain to more people that there is a conjunction, so that if he has to commit our forces, he and—more importantly—the forces will have the support of the British people?

Tony Blair: That is a very good point and a fair one, and in many ways it is the difficultly that we have with this issue. I believe that 11 September was a wake-up call to the world. It was an extremely important moment when something happened that we thought could never possibly happen: modern technology and terrorist fanaticism came together in the most devastating way for the people of the United States and for the world. What is interesting is that at our press conference on Friday, President Bush made the point that a few days before 11 September he was discussing how we ameliorated the sanctions regime against Iraq.
	It is true that 11 September has changed a lot of thinking. That is why, a few days afterwards—on 14 September—I made my first statement on the matter to the House, in which I said that the next issue that we had to deal with was weapons of mass destruction. We have constantly tried to explain to people that these two issues are not separate. People say to us, "Why don't you pursue al-Qaeda and forget about Iraq for the moment?", but we have got to go on both tracks because both represent the threats of the fanatical over the rational. They represent threats to the civilised world from acts of barbarity, and both represent those people who have absolutely no compunction whatever about the amount of human life that they take, for a cause that can never be negotiated on.
	So the fact is that these two issues are intimately linked. People talk about the potential links between Iraq and al-Qaeda—there is a lot of speculation—but without a doubt, if we do not deal with both of these issues at some point terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will come together. It is simply not possible to have a situation in which states are developing and trading in this stuff, with their scientists being hired by the top bidder, and in which these terrorist groups are well-financed and able to recruit people even to die in their cause. It is not possible to have those two threats operating and for them not to come together at a certain point, and the consequences would then be devastating.
	People ask me why I am, in a sense, risking everything politically on this issue, but I say to them in all honesty that I do not want to be the Prime Minister to whom people point the finger in history and say, "You knew perfectly well that those two threats were there, and you didn't do anything about it. In the end, you took the easy way out. You said, 'No, let's park it a little. Let's leave it—let's wait and see how it goes.'" We know that these threats are there and we have got to deal with them. I think that, in the end, in situations such as this the British people always ultimately respond, because they have a common sense and a faith that sees them through.

Clive Soley: Following on from that point, and in relation to the Prime Minister's conversations with other world leaders, can he tell us whether a shared and growing concern exists that, if the United Nations does not reform from the 1945 model to face the very threats that he has just talked about, there is an acute danger that it will end up looking like the League of Nations instead of the United Nations?

Tony Blair: That is absolutely right, which is why we must exhibit firmness of purpose now.

Tony Baldry: Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), what specific discussions are taking place with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other UN agencies in terms of the international community's response to the humanitarian consequences of conflict with Iraq?

Tony Blair: Detailed discussions on the issue between allies and the UN are going on, as last Thursday's debate in the House indicated. We are well aware that we must have a humanitarian plan that is every bit as viable and well worked out as a military plan.

Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the UN estimates that between 142,000 and 206,000 Iraqis died as a direct consequence of the Gulf war. How does he square his answer on humanitarian issues with the Pentagon's declared intention to use up to 10 times the firepower that was used 12 years ago?

Tony Blair: First, in respect of speculation on military plans, it is important that we debate those plans when they are fully developed, rather than press reports of them. Secondly, I assure my hon. Friend that if military action begins, we will make every possible effort to minimise any civilian casualties, as we managed to do in Kosovo and Afghanistan. We will be able to do that to a greater extent in Iraq.

Jenny Tonge: If the Prime Minister accepts that the situation in the middle east is one of the prime causes of terrorism in the world today, will he explain, clearly and concisely, how a war with Iraq will fight terrorism and help the middle east process that he is currently pursuing?

Tony Blair: I have given the reasons for the action that we are taking in respect of Iraq. It is important that we make every effort to push forward the middle east peace process, which is what we are going to do. But we cannot say, as it were, that we will do one, but not the other; we must do both. If we believe that there is a threat in respect of Iraq, surely we are obliged to deal with it. We have tried to do so through the UN process and, if we can do that, it will be far better. As for the middle east peace process, we must make what progress we can—[Interruption.] I am sorry; hon. Members must forgive me for a moment. We are trying to make progress on the middle east peace process, but that progress should not absolve us from the duty and the need to tackle also the issue of Iraq.

Derek Foster: I wholly welcome the Prime Minister's efforts to persuade President Bush to seek a second resolution in the UN. Would not it be deeply regrettable if the United States—a founder member of the UN—did anything to undermine the authority of the UN? Would not it have profound implications for the long-term peace and security of the world if the United States took international law into its own hands?

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is precisely for that reason that UN resolution 1441 was passed. There are two parts to that deal. The first is that we take the UN route. The second is that if there is a breach of the UN resolution, we act. If we fail to act when there is a breach, it will undermine the UN itself.

Angela Browning: The Prime Minister has indicated that, beyond Iraq, there may be a need to confront weapons of mass destruction in other states, such as North Korea and others. Given that potential longer-term commitment for our military, possibly extended peacekeeping operations and the need for home defence, what review have the Government made of our current defence budget, of personnel levels in the armed forces and of defence procurement?

Tony Blair: I should not say that I am suggesting that we need take military action in respect of every country where there is a problem with weapons of mass destruction, but our belief as to what our military will need and our defence expenditure must certainly take account of the new situation that we face. That is one reason why, over the next few years, we have, for the first time, a real-terms increase in defence spending.

Ian Lucas: Will the Prime Minister please confirm that he will support military action against Iraq only if the UN weapons inspectors certify that there is a continuing material breach of UN resolution 1441?

Tony Blair: That is exactly the position that I have outlined. If the inspectors continue to certify that Iraq is not co-operating fully, that is a material breach. It is precisely so that the inspectors can make those findings of fact that we put them there. That is why I said, a moment or two ago, that if Saddam had come into compliance with the UN inspectors and they certified that, yes, he was fully complying, the issue would not have arisen.

Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only moral justification for war is self-defence and that one cannot invoke self-defence unless one can honestly say that Saddam Hussein is an imminent and grave threat to peace? Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that a resolution of the Security Council, or even the discovery of weapons of mass destruction, do not of themselves, standing alone, constitute a moral justification for war?

Tony Blair: I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is justified to enforce the will of the United Nations. Even if, as he says, there is no immediate threat to this country, I believe that there is undoubtedly a threat to the security of the world arising from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—particularly in circumstances where the UN makes a determination and the world fails to uphold it.

Robert Wareing: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what economic and commercial pressures, especially with regard to oil contracts, President Bush and the rest of his gang are putting on countries represented in the UN Security Council to approve military action against Iraq? Is there no chance at all of a meeting of the General Assembly of the UN to discuss this most serious matter?

Tony Blair: The answer on pressure is none. The second point is that the oil is Iraqi oil; it is owned by the Iraqi people. When people tell me that this is all about oil, I return to the point that I have made on many, many occasions: it is one of the most absurd conspiracy theories that we have to face in relation to this matter. If all that Britain, America or any other country wanted was greater access to Iraqi oil, Saddam Hussein would give us that access tomorrow if we withdrew the sanctions regime and the threat of action. We have to deal with the facts, which are that this is about weapons of mass destruction and that any issues to do with contracts and so on will be for the Iraqi people.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Points of Order

Oliver Letwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you give me some help? About three weeks ago, I asked a simple factual question of the Home Office to try to ascertain what the No. 10 press office said to the Home Office press office, which led, as it seems, to the acceleration by the immigration and nationality directorate of the deportation of Mr. Peter Foster. I have not received a reply. Can you offer any guidance, Mr. Speaker, on what could be done to get a reply to a question that is three weeks old and could have been answered in 20 minutes?

Mr. Speaker: My suggestion is that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should ring the Minister's office. Failing that, there is also the Public Administration Committee, which could look into the matter.

Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the House changed its hours recently, we were told that it would not close down in the evenings when we had people coming in for meetings. On 22 January, I chaired a very large anti-war meeting in the Grand Committee Room, with overspill into room W1 and the Jubilee Room. A few minutes before 9 pm, I received several messages from security staff saying that we had to end the meeting at 9 pm. After 9 pm, the pressure increased and because I did not want to take up my concerns with members of staff, who were obviously acting under instructions, I closed the meeting. I have written to the Serjeant at Arms to express my concern, but will you take the matter up for us? Today, on "Woman's Hour" a Member—to whom I have written—categorically denied that we were kicked out of the room, but we were. MPs were at the meeting, as well as about 200 other people. Will you take the matter up on our behalf?

Mr. Speaker: I received this complaint from an hon. Gentleman, and I looked into the matter. The fact of the matter is that, before the change in hours, 9 o'clock was the limit for having visitors in any of our Committee Rooms. In other words, the hon. Lady had extra hours, so she was not thrown out; she was over time.

Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State responsible for local government made any request to you to come to the House and make a statement about the total debacle that occurred—not only in London, but across the whole country—owing to a minuscule fall of snow? Many of my constituents, for example, took hours to travel the very small distance from central London to Hampstead, simply because of a total breakdown in public transport and the inability of traffic to move on the roads. Has such a request been made; or will you, on our behalf, urge someone to come and make such a statement?

Mr. Speaker: I have looked into that matter, perhaps because I have a selfish interest: I was held up at Heathrow airport. I can tell the hon. Lady that I understand that Ministers are investigating the matter. I can also report that it is snowing in Glasgow and there is no problem at all.

Alan Simpson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance in relation to the previous statement? It now looks increasingly clear that the Bush Administration intend to find a pretext to declare war on Iraq within the next month. As you know, the House has not had an opportunity to debate and vote on the substantive issue of whether we should support such a war. In view of the huge humanitarian consequences that would follow, can you advise us on how we might have an opportunity to vote on whether we would support going down a path that would abandon the pursuit of al-Qaeda simply to become it?

Mr. Speaker: Ministers will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say.
	Orders of the Day

European Parliament (Representation) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Duty To Consult

'Before making any order or regulations under Part 2, the Lord Chancellor shall consult with, and shall have regard for the views expressed by, the Chief Minister and the House of Assembly of Gibraltar, and representatives of political parties established in Gibraltar which he expects to seek registration under section 11(3).'—[Mr. Heath.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 24, in clause 9, page 5, line 16 leave out 'the Governor and' and insert—
	'the Government of Gibraltar and in particular'.
	No. 26, in clause 11, page 5, line 34, at end insert—
	'but only after he has consulted with the Government of Gibraltar and in particular the Chief Minister as to which matters it is proposed to legislate by order and which by Ordinance of the House of Assembly in Gibraltar'.
	No. 27, in page 5, line 37, leave out subsection (3).
	No. 28, in page 6, line 11, leave out subsection (4).
	No. 32, in clause 16, page 8, line 22, after 'Chancellor', insert—
	'subject to the provisions of section 25(3A)'.
	No. 33, in page 9, line 13, after 'Commission', insert—
	'and the Government of Gibraltar and the Chief Minister in particular'.
	No. 34, in clause 17, page 9, line 24, leave out—
	'or any provision of the law of Gibraltar'
	and insert—
	'but subject to the provisions of section 25(3A).'.
	No. 41, in clause 22, page 11, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
	No. 30, in clause 25, page 12, line 6, after 'Chancellor', insert—
	'after consultation with the Government of Gibraltar and the Chief Minister in particular in pursuance of section 25(3A).'.
	No. 29, in page 12, line 7, at end insert—
	'(3A) Where under Part 2 of this Act legislation is enacted or may be enacted by order that legislation shall not come into effect until the Lord Chancellor has consulted with the Government and Chief Minister of Gibraltar in particular as to whether it would be more appropriate (having regard to the Constitution of Gibraltar) for that legislation to be legislated by order or regulation on the one hand or by Ordinance of the House of Assembly in Gibraltar on the other hand.'.

David Heath: It is a pleasure to consider the Bill on the Floor of the House, because we largely support it. Having said that, as was evidenced in Committee, there are some strange anomalies in its drafting, and new clause 2 deals with one: the neo-colonialist attitude of the Lord Chancellor's Department in framing the Bill.
	It should be obvious to us all that, in seeking to implement a change in Gibraltar's electoral arrangements that has implications for Gibraltar's legal and financial processes and that could require sums to be paid from the Consolidated Fund for Gibraltar, there should be adequate scope for consulting the people of Gibraltar. Sadly, the Bill includes only one requirement for direct consultation with Gibraltar: under clause 9, the Electoral Commission must consult the Governor and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, although there are subsequent occasions on which the Lord Chancellor will be required to consult the Electoral Commission. That is curious in a number of ways.
	First, it is particularly curious that the Governor should be identified as a person representing the interests of the people of Gibraltar. That stands the constitution on its head. The Governor is a representative of the Crown in Gibraltar. It could be argued that the Government are consulting themselves; at the very least, they are consulting the representative of the Head of State. It might be argued that they are being required to consult a representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as the FCO puts forward the recommendation for the appointment of the Governor of Gibraltar.
	The Chief Minister, of course, is a different matter, as he more than adequately represents the interests of Gibraltar. But in a matter that requires changes to electoral rules that will apply not just to the Chief Minister's party but to other parties represented in Gibraltar, it is anomalous to consult only the representative of one party, however distinguished that person might be. It is anomalous to have an unelected Lord Chancellor consulting an unelected Governor of Gibraltar to consider the appropriate arrangements for electing Gibraltar's representatives in the European Parliament. I do not think that I am alone in finding that a curious state of affairs.
	We have a newly appointed Governor of Gibraltar, Sir Francis Richards, whom I have every reason to suppose will be an exceptional Governor. As his experience is as director of GCHQ, he might be said to be very good at listening. Even with those credentials, he cannot properly represent the views of the people of Gibraltar, or at least he cannot do as good a job as would those elected by the people of Gibraltar—not just the Chief Minister but the Members of the House of Assembly and the representatives of the political parties that it is expected will be registered by virtue of the Bill, should it be enacted.
	My amendment therefore places a modest requirement on the Government. It does not seek to challenge the position of the Lord Chancellor in taking forward the legislation, although we certainly could challenge it. Indeed, we had a debate in Committee that could have been subtitled, "Why is the Lord Chancellor?", to which there is no adequate response. The new clause simply specifies that the Lord Chancellor "shall consult with, and"—here is a constitutional innovation—
	"shall have regard for the views expressed by, the Chief Minister and the House of Assembly of Gibraltar, and representatives of political parties established in Gibraltar which he expects to seek registration under section 11(3)",
	and that that consultation should take place before making any order or regulations under part 2.
	Clearly, the mind of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has been working in a very similar way, as the raft of amendments that he has tabled would require much the same degree of consultation. To give the Minister her due, she undertook in Committee to re-examine the position of the Governor, and, on reflection, she perhaps shared our view that that piece of drafting was slightly anomalous. However, she has not tabled an amendment to address that at this stage, which is why we must pursue our proposals. Other than by assurance, she was not prepared to tell us that the consultations with the people of Gibraltar, via their political parties and the House of Assembly, would be as comprehensive as some of us feel would be appropriate. In particular, it is extraordinary that the House of Assembly should not be consulted as a matter of course before an order is put before this House. That is even more extraordinary given that the later stages of the Bill, and particularly the financial provisions in part 3, allow for
	"expenditure to be paid out of money provided by Parliament or to be met by Gibraltar",
	and
	"for sums to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of Gibraltar".

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is developing an extremely persuasive line of argument. Given that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), is an acknowledged and proud democrat but that the Lord Chancellor manifestly and probably equally proudly is not, does the hon. Gentleman think that the lacuna in the Bill as it stands is an error of omission or of commission?

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that observation. It may have been apparent from my words that I share his view about the precise position of the Lord Chancellor. I applaud to the hilt what I believe to be the Parliamentary Secretary's position with regard to the matters that we shall debate tomorrow and that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rightly rule out of order were we to discuss them today.
	We discussed in Committee whether there was a mechanism by which we could place important electoral matters back into the hands of an elected Minister answerable to this House—namely, the hon. Lady—rather into the hands of an unelected Minister who appears to be accountable to no one except perhaps the person who appointed him and who wishes to clone that form of representation for the other place in future.

Simon Hughes: I apologise for missing the first two minutes of my hon. Friend's speech.
	Further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful if the Government accepted two more arguments? The first picks up on the frustration of Northern Ireland colleagues who often find that orders that they cannot amend are implemented over their heads. If we want to avoid further antagonising the House of Assembly and the people of Gibraltar, the new clause would provide a way of doing that.
	Secondly, the past year has not been a glorious one for relations between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Gibraltar. The new clause would be a way of putting together an honest listening dialogue rather than the dialogue of the deaf that appears to the Government's approach when it comes to their listening to voices from Gibraltar in the past 12 months.

David Heath: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says.
	I return to the point with which I opened my brief contribution. The Government's present position suggests a neo-colonialism that ill becomes them. One can almost see the pith helmet on the head of those who seek to introduce these proposals.

Tony Cunningham: The words "neo-colonial" or "colonial" were used several times in Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that most of Britain's colonies were different from Gibraltar in that they all wanted independence from the United Kingdom? It is clear from what has happened over the past 12 months that Gibraltar wants to remain part of the United Kingdom.

David Heath: Indeed it does. Gibraltar is proud of that distinction. However, it feels that it had won a degree of self-determination when the Gibraltar constitution order was signed in 1969. It felt that the House of Assembly was an important part of its constitutional arrangements and not something that could be ignored when a Government introduced a Bill such as this. I still believe that the Government wish to be fair to Gibraltar and I do not doubt the Minister's intentions. I accept her assurances that the government of Gibraltar in the wider sense, including the House of Assembly and those who speak on behalf of the people of Gibraltar, will be consulted. However, such an assurance does not appear in the Bill. It should, and my new clause would establish the principle.

Andrew Rosindell: Surely the point is that the territory of Gibraltar is not an equal part of the United Kingdom. It is a self-governing British overseas territory and therefore has no vote in deciding the Government of this country, so it is utterly wrong that it should not be consulted fully in all these decisions.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman knows that I concur entirely. That is why I tabled the new clause and the hon. Member for Stone tabled amendments. I hope that the Minister will explain what possible exception the Minister might take to a duty to consult the House of Assembly. It would be right and proper for her to accept the new clause.

William Cash: Excuse my slight croakiness, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am afraid that I had flu over the weekend. I will, no doubt, survive, but perhaps I should take the opportunity to save my voice a little this afternoon.
	I agree in general with new clause 2 for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). As I said repeatedly in Committee, consultation is essential to the process to ensure that the people of Gibraltar are not treated in an imperialistic and colonialist fashion. It is, to say the least, extremely surprising that the provisions were not included in the first place. The Government did not seem to understand the sensitivities that that omission would arouse in Gibraltar. I am not suggesting that no discussions have been held between Ministers and the Chief Minister since the Committee stage began, but they have not been translated into amendments.
	There is a slight problem with new clause 2. It could be said that it goes a little further than is strictly necessary, but I would not make an issue of that. Without any doubt, however, proper consultation with the Chief Minister and the House of Assembly is essential, as I repeatedly said in Committee. I am glad that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and I agree on that. Furthermore, I asked what consultation means. The manner in which the Bill was introduced is a good example of a serious lack of consultation as I shall define it. The Government of Gibraltar did not, so far as I know, see a copy of the Bill until it was introduced. A lot of feathers have been ruffled because of the lack of good manners in terms of the discussions that could have taken place.
	I tabled an amendment that would have obliged the Government to have due regard to the views expressed and to give reasons for their decisions; the Minister suggested that that would be inappropriate. Without going through all the case law, it is clear from the best authority on the subject that, where there is a duty to consult, the courts have laid down the criteria for proper consultation. The consultation must be undertaken when the proposal is at a formative stage. We cannot say that that has happened. Case law also shows that sufficient reasons must be given for the proposal to enable an informed response to be given. Adequate time must be given for the response to the proposals. The product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account when the ultimate decision is made. We have not got to the point of ultimate decision because the Bill is still going through its stages, but I ask the Minister to bear my comments in mind.

Tony Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that both the people and the Government of Gibraltar very much welcome the principle of the Bill?

William Cash: That is precisely why we did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. It gives the people of Gibraltar a great advantage, but it is our job in Committee and on Report to examine its nuts and bolts and point out areas that could be improved in the House and subsequently in the House of Lords. Where there is a duty to consult, fairness may require disclosure to an interested person of the advice on which the Minister proposes to rely. In a nutshell, will the Minister reassure us that a proper process of consultation, as prescribed by the courts, will be fully implemented?
	The Governor's role raises important questions. Clause 9(2) suggests that he should be given a role that exceeds the one ascribed to him under the constitution of Gibraltar. He has no say over elections there, as they are a defined domestic matter under the constitution. It is unacceptable that he should be consulted. We do not expect him to be consulted on Gibraltar's electoral region, which is exclusively a matter for the elected Government of Gibraltar to represent before the Electoral Commission. For reasons that have already been given, we therefore strongly urge the House to accept new clause 2 and amendment No. 29. Amendment No. 29 says that where legislation is passed in relation to the Bill
	"or may be enacted by order that legislation shall not come into effect until the Lord Chancellor has consulted with the Government and Chief Minister . . . in particular as to whether it would be more appropriate (having regard to the Constitution of Gibraltar) for that legislation to be legislated by order or regulation on the one hand or by Ordinance of the House of Assembly in Gibraltar on the other hand."
	We agree that consultation is necessary, and I trust that the House shares my belief that the nature of the exercise requires compatible electoral laws for the components of the new combined region, assuming that it is made up, for example, of the south-west and Gibraltar. Although the amendment that I tabled in Committee was not selected, I suggested that the words "and Gibraltar" should be added to the relevant list. However, that does not explain how we are to achieve the right balance between what is more properly legislated for in the House of Assembly and the extensive ordinances, order-making process and regulations set out in the Bill.
	I refer the House to the full range of clause 11, which states:
	"The Lord Chancellor may by order make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of, or in connection with, the inclusion of Gibraltar in an electoral region for the purposes of European Parliamentary elections."
	It is difficult to think of a broader provision than that. The clause goes on to specify certain matters, such as the registration of political parties, control of donations, obligations to persons providing programme services and so on, and it includes various definitions.
	Clause 12 states that the orders under clauses 10 and 11, which create the combined region and provide those extensive powers, can be made by statutory instrument, and that such orders may make consequential, supplementary and other provisions, and
	"may modify, exclude or apply with or without modifications",
	and I shall focus on "modify" and "exclude",
	"any provision made by or under an Act"—
	the Minister has adjusted that slightly by reference to enactment, but I do not think that, for practical purposes, that makes very much difference—
	"and any provision of the law of Gibraltar."
	That provision must be read against the gamut of provisions in clauses 13 to 17 on electoral registration and voting in Gibraltar, which deal with the nature of the Gibraltar register, the Gibraltar franchise for European parliamentary elections, the entitlement to be registered in Gibraltar, a vast range of regulations that can be made in respect of all those matters and the potential exclusion or modification of Gibraltarian law.
	To say that that is insulting to the people of Gibraltar would be an understatement. Their constitution already has powers to deal with those matters. We assume that it will be necessary to make certain calibrations and adjustments to be sure that proper weight is given to procedures that will enhance the democratic process.
	I have pages and pages of Gibraltarian ordinances—I do not need to go through them—that deal with those very matters. What we need, and the reason I dealt with the amendments in the way that I did—with great respect to my hon. Friend, or rather to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—

Bob Russell: He can be a friend.

William Cash: Indeed. When we have a drink together, that is perfectly okay. In fact, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is the Member of Parliament for the area from which my parents-in-law and my wife came, so I have a special interest in watching what he is up to.
	The idea of consultation, expressed in the terms in which the hon. Gentleman's amendment is couched, does not go far enough. I seek to draw in all the provisions to ensure that a proper decision is taken as a result of consultation, which is the object of amendment No. 29. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should consult, as he proposes, but I believe that we should take the process a little further. I think he would agree that it is important that the consultation process should focus on where the legislation dealing with such sensitive matters should be passed. Should it be done in the House of Assembly, as it currently is, or should it be done here? I know that the Government of Gibraltar will be sensitive to these questions, in that they want to have proper consultation. Equally, they feel aggrieved because they were not brought into the process of discussions about this matter at an earlier stage.
	Perhaps we could have a clear assurance from the Minister on the role of the Governor. In Committee she went further than the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggested; I think that she really said that it was not appropriate for the Governor to have the powers. I know about her democratic credentials, and if she has seen my letter in The Daily Telegraph this morning she will realise that, at any rate on this point about democracy and the unelected, we obviously have a certain amount in common.
	What is important is to have assurances that the consultation process will mean not only talking to people about these matters, but proper consultation in line with the criteria laid down by the courts, which I have described. Moreover, the question of where the legislation goes through should be calibrated more in favour of Gibraltar, where it can be done efficiently and constitutionally. We need to be sure that we help the Gibraltarians to realise that they have not just been brought in as an afterthought. We know that the Government have not been entirely enthusiastic about the consultation process. They were somewhat driven into it by the Denise Matthews case. We are therefore a little wary about the manner in which the process will continue.

Tony Cunningham: So that I and the House may have some idea of the scale of the problem, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could give us an indication of the amount of correspondence that he has had from the people of Gibraltar about the very important issue of the lack of consultation.

William Cash: I have had the most interesting correspondence. It is not for me to go into detail as to where it has come from. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is from an extremely good source and that it has great authority. It is also extremely clear. I am delighted to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman that before I entered into these discussions and this correspondence I had, as I think the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome had, noticed the difficulties, discrepancies and lacunae in the process. Some of the points that I made on Second Reading also arose from my own assessment. So we are in the wonderful position of having a conjunction, at least on this side of the House, on these fundamental questions. I suspect that there is also sympathy on the other side of the House, certainly among some of its more distinguished hon. Members, with regard to quite a few of these points.
	It is very important that we get the balance right on where the legislation should be passed. The way to deal with the matter is along the lines of my amendment No. 29.
	I have already dealt with amendment No. 24. I would, however, add that we wish the new Governor well in this context, because he inherits a situation in which, to say the least, some improvement in personal relations will be very welcome.
	Amendment No. 26 seeks to require consultation with the Government of Gibraltar and the Chief Minister under clause 11(1). I tabled amendment No. 28 because difficulties in dealing with precise definitions will need to be dealt with through discussion and in consultation with the powers that be in Gibraltar. Amendment No. 32 is a purely technical amendment. Amendment No. 33 again deals with the need to involve
	"the Government of Gibraltar and the Chief Minister in particular"
	in consultation with the Electoral Commission.
	Importantly, amendment No. 41 seeks to remove clause 22(3) because, in the terms in which the Gibraltar Government will understand things—and, indeed, as I understand this matter—it is inconceivable that the United Kingdom should directly authorise expenditure on Gibraltar's constitutional fund. To say the least, such a measure would be a colonialist step in the wrong direction. It is only the legislature of Gibraltar that should give such authorisation. I remain astonished that the Minister has not yet come to terms with the fact that that is a matter of grave constitutional importance to Gibraltar's Government. I am also astonished that the Government have not more specifically acknowledged the point that has been made in that regard.
	Amendment No. 30 is another technical amendment that ties in with amendment No. 29.
	The amendments deal with important matters. I broadly agree with the new clause, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, but I believe that we must go that bit further to get the balance right on where legislation is decided. There must also be a proper consultation process to ensure that the genuine and justifiable sensitivities of the people of Gibraltar and the Chief Minister are fully satisfied.

Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties have been representing a sensible view. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department will take on board the fact that there should be consultation with the Chief Minister and the House of Assembly, because I question the Governor's independence. We all know that the Governor is independent only on the day when he finishes his job, as he has always rightly been answerable to the Foreign Office, which employs him, and the Foreign Secretary. Unfortunately, I do not think that a Governor has the appropriate independence, and I wonder why we even bother to consult on the basis of such an arrangement.
	I recognise my hon. Friend the Minister's new views on the essential fact that we should have elected representation in the House of Lords. In that case, good consideration should surely be given to ensuring that we listen in the same way to the views of the elected representatives of Gibraltar. On that basis, and given her belief in democracy, I hope that she will agree that we should take on board those democratic views and that there should be a way forward. I do not think that that is asking for a lot or that it would affect anything; I merely believe that it would tidy up the situation, as we would be listening only to the democratically expressed views of elected people. That is why such an approach is important for Gibraltar as well.
	The stuffy old argument is always made about colonial masters. If we want to be cool Britannia and portray a new image, it would be right to show the people of Gibraltar that we respect their views and will listen to them alone. The Foreign Office should not influence what should be viewed only in terms of democracy.

David Ruffley: I support the amendments tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The amendments are important because they would give the people of Gibraltar reassurance that their views were being taken seriously and that the Government would not try to railroad through any measures.
	That reassurance is especially important after last week's events, when the Prime Minister of Spain provided useful support to our Prime Minister on the issue of Iraq. Those in the diplomatic community to whom I have spoken since the joint letter was signed have made it clear that they think that Spain might exact a price from the Government for that support. Whether that is true or not, we must recognise that freedom and electoral rights in Gibraltar can be protected only by eternal vigilance in this House. One means of demonstrating our eternal vigilance on behalf of the people of Gibraltar would be to support the amendments. They are reasonable, they would tighten up the language and they would provide better consultation rights for the Minister, the Government and the Assembly of Gibraltar. For those reasons, I strongly support the amendments.

Andrew Rosindell: I also support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and others. I am astounded that we are even debating the point. How can it be, after so many discussions over so many weeks, that we are still questioning whether the people and the elected Government of Gibraltar—the House of Assembly and the Chief Minister—should be consulted? Of course those people should be given the right to comment and have their views considered on this legislation and on other matters affecting their future.
	For whatever reason, the Government continue to appear arrogant towards the people of Gibraltar. It is desperately sad that the people of the Rock, who are so loyal to this country, should be treated so shabbily by our Government. For the sake of the people of that overseas territory, I hope that the Minister will tell us clearly why the Government appear to object to giving the right of proper consultation to the democratically elected Government of Gibraltar on the matters that we are discussing. Many thousands of people on the Rock will be watching this debate and will be greatly concerned that, once again, the British Government are failing in their duty to consult British people on an issue of such importance. I hope that the Minister will answer that point clearly, so that all those watching in Gibraltar will understand why the Government have taken the view that they have.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) mentioned the Prime Minister of Spain and his co-operation with our Prime Minister during this difficult time of international tension, and the fact that Spain and this country are working together on the issue of possible conflict in the middle east. I remind the Minister that we have depended on Gibraltar at difficult times in our history and we may well depend on the co-operation of the people of Gibraltar again in the weeks ahead. Surely it is time that we showed them the same respect and loyalty that they have shown us over so many years.

Yvette Cooper: Hon. Members have tabled a series of amendments reflecting concerns that were discussed extensively in Committee, where I made it clear that I am sympathetic to many of their underlying principles. I undertook to look further at many of the issues, and we are giving detailed consideration to the tabling of amendments in the other place. I said before the Bill left Committee that it would not be possible to table detailed amendments on Report owing to the amount of time required by the parliamentary draftsmen and the need to ensure that the Government of Gibraltar are consulted.

Bob Russell: Will the Minister explain why those basic points of principle were not included in the Bill in the first place?

Yvette Cooper: They were. The point of the Bill is to enfranchise the people of Gibraltar for the European parliamentary elections. The timetable to which we are all operating is based on the need to meet the deadline of the 2004 elections. Considerable consultation with the Government of Gibraltar has taken place over a long period, and the principles behind the Bill were set out to them some time ago. We are keen to consider further points that they have made, and it would be completely incorrect to say that we have not consulted the Government of Gibraltar. We have done so, and we shall, as we must, continue to do so. Indeed, that is why the final amendments were not tabled on Report.
	Hon. Members may have seen the letter that I said that I would send to them in response to some of the points that they raised in Committee. If not, it should be waiting outside on the board for them. I apologise for its lateness.

William Cash: I have had a brief word with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), and neither of us has received that letter. That does not bode well for the consultation process, does it?

Yvette Cooper: To be honest, I cannot see that it has any bearing on the consultation process. I informed the hon. Gentleman that there is a letter for him, which may be on the board as we speak, because I thought that it would be courteous to do so. I apologise for the timing, but I thought that it was important to make every effort to ensure that he received it today.
	Broadly speaking, the amendments are premature or refer to things that are already taking place. For example, many aspects of the Bill are being discussed with the Government of Gibraltar. I have indicated my sympathy with the point about the reference to the Governor rather than to the House of Assembly, and we are giving that serious consideration in drafting our amendments.

David Ruffley: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us the time scale for consideration by Ministers? We have not got much time.

Yvette Cooper: As I said at the end of our Committee proceedings, we intend to table amendments in the other place. I also said that we did not want to table amendments about which we had not yet managed to consult the Government of Gibraltar. That would clearly go against the spirit of the amendments that we are discussing.
	Hon. Members have raised the Chief Minister's view that the Bill should refer to the Government of Gibraltar rather than to the Governor and the Chief Minister. As I said, we have undertaken to tackle that anxiety if we can.
	Amendment No. 41 deals with the Bill's impact on the consolidated fund of Gibraltar, which the Government of Gibraltar raised directly with our officials only last week. It is a complex issue because of the financial arrangements. Further discussions will take place with the Government of Gibraltar about such money matters.
	In the light of my remarks, I ask hon. Members to withdraw the motion. I assure hon. Members that we want to consult people in Gibraltar about the detail of the measure.

Lindsay Hoyle: I take on board my hon. Friend's comments that there is a great opportunity to incorporate our views in another place. I am trying to be as hopeful as possible. Can I take it from her words that genuine consideration will take place and that the Bill can include those views? That is important. She rightly pointed out that we have listened to hon. Members of all parties but that we must consider timing and the need to consult the people of Gibraltar, which is a priority. I welcome that and I hope that other hon. Members take account of it. I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance, but can she firm it up a little?

Yvette Cooper: I cannot guarantee being able to fulfil all the amendments' intentions, but I shall examine all the issues that the Government of Gibraltar raised. For example, they wrote to us with a long list of points in the past week. They include: matters to do with the Governor; the amount that can be achieved through parallel Gibraltar legislation; specific wording, such as references to the Clerk of the House of Assembly and the Supreme Court of Gibraltar. Some of the points are complicated and require much discussion and consideration. We have already undertaken work to try to implement others.
	The Government of Gibraltar suggested that clause 14 did not need to be part of the Bill and that it could be effected through local legislation. We do not accept that because we cannot make the necessary changes to make the elections happen without using United Kingdom legislation. Some changes are therefore possible but others are not.

Tony Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend reaffirm that the priority is ensuring that the people of Gibraltar have the opportunity of voting in the European Parliament elections in 2004?

Yvette Cooper: Indeed. The purpose of the Bill was to fit the 2004 timetable so that the people of Gibraltar could have the vote.
	Some of the points that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) raised will be considered as part of other amendments. For example, the hon. Gentleman referred to enactment. Other points were slightly more wide ranging. He referred to his letter in The Daily Telegraph, which I read rapidly after his invitation to do so. Much as I would love to agree with him, I fear that he will be disappointed because I have never endorsed his views on the House of Lords. I believe that it needs to be reformed, and there is a series of ways in which we can, and should, make it more accountable, including, for example, reflecting the regions and the use of indirect elections. But I see that you are raising your eyebrows at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not go any further with that important discussion about our need to increase accountability.
	I therefore ask the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to withdraw the motion, and to leave the consideration of the detailed amendments on these issues to another place.

David Heath: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that, if the hon. Lady's pager message was "Vote imminent", it was probably accurate? I have listened with great care to what she has said, and I am grateful to her for explaining that she is at least considering these issues. Having said that, however, the argument for the late incorporation of amendments in another place, where we do not have the opportunity to debate them fully, is an argument of expediency. We have had years since the Denise Matthews case in which to make these changes to the franchise for Gibraltar. The matter could have been on the agenda for detailed discussion at any time during those years, but all the time the Government have resisted any such change. Now, however, we are being asked to push through the legislation as a matter of urgency, simply because it suits the Government so to do, and those of us who have been committed to the enfranchisement of the people of Gibraltar have only a limited opportunity to make the points that we believe are important. The people who feel that way are, of course, to be found on either side of the Chamber today; indeed, we have heard valuable contributions from the hon. Members for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), and for Romford (Mr. Rosindell).
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and I seem to have found a happy conjunction on many parts of the Bill, possibly to the astonishment of both our parties. I have looked again at the amendments that stand in his name, most of which I find myself in agreement with. As he pointed out, amendment No. 29, in particular, takes matters a little further than my new clause 2 in dealing with the constitutional differentiation between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar in implementing the orders. He may, therefore, wish to press that amendment to a vote, and, if he does, I may well advise my colleagues to support him.
	I decline the opportunity to withdraw the motion, because I believe that the most important thing is to send a clear message to another place and to the Lord Chancellor that the present provisions in the Bill simply will not do, and that we need to make explicit the need to consult the people of Gibraltar properly. I seek the advice of the House on the matter.

William Cash: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that we have finished that debate now.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 288.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Electoral Commission Recommendations

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 2, line 23 [Clause 2], leave out
	'any change or anticipated change under Community law in'
	and insert
	'ARTICLE 2 of Protocol A.Protocol annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities as respects'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 22, in page 3, line 20 [Clause 4], leave out
	'a change under Community law in'
	and insert
	'ARTICLE 2 of Protocol A.Protocol annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities as respects'.

William Cash: I should begin by handing to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) a letter that I have just received that was addressed to me, but which is actually for him. The degrees of consultation are becoming more and more ridiculous, but having said that, I have now been able to read what the Minister had to say, and it does take us a little further.
	The amendments raise extremely important points that we traversed in Committee, but on which we did not reach a conclusion.
	Amendment No. 21 deals with a strange provision in the Bill, which has lurking within it some difficult issues of constitutional law. The amendment relates to clause 2, which empowers the Lord Chancellor by notice to
	"require the Electoral Commission to make a recommendation to him as to the distribution between the electoral regions of—
	(a) a total number of MEPs specified in the notice; or
	(b) if the notice specifies more than one total number of MEPs, each of the total numbers so specified.
	We then come to the specific difficulty, which is as follows:
	"The power to give such a notice is exercisable with a view to the implementation of any change or anticipated change under Community law in the total number of MEPs to be elected for the United Kingdom."
	I propose that we leave out the words
	"any change or anticipated change under Community law"
	and insert specific provisions relating to the treaty of Nice, which—unenthusiastic as I am about its provisions—I accept is a part of the law of the UK, including the protocol. In Committee, I asked why the House should be expected, under an order-making power, to enable such a notice to be given with a view not only to a change of community law, but to an anticipated change.
	As I said in Committee, the Bill is based on a hypothesis; we do not know how the referendums in the accession states will work out. Therefore, we have no way of knowing exactly how many MEPs will be drawn into the process. In Poland, where there are 50 seats, there is strong resistance to going further into the integration process. When Poland hears about the horrors of the convention on the European constitution—I dare say that that will be described to the country graphically during the referendum process—there will be a greater determination not to go along with it.
	The impact of the protocol on the UK will be to reduce the number of our MEPs, which currently stands at 87, to 72. That arises under article 2 of the protocol, which, for the purposes of the European Communities Act 1972, is to be regarded as a treaty. A peculiar wording has been chosen, which—because of the words "community law"—cannot be confined simply to the protocol, and may include any other proposal that might be brought in by legislative instrument; perhaps by the Commission.
	The explanatory notes suggest that the European Commission shall inform the UK Parliament as to the number of Members that we would be expected to implement. Frankly, I cannot understand why the words have been chosen, unless it is to give as much ambit as possible to the Government to enable them to calibrate the system in a way that suits them at a given time. But that is not the way we legislate in this country.

Tony Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the Bill goes through, we will have 72 British MEPs in 2004? If Poland, or any of the other applicant countries, does not agree on entry in a referendum and does not join, all that will happen is that we will get additional seats. We are bound to get 72 and, regardless of what happens in the future, we will get more than 72 seats if a country does not come in.

William Cash: Even if that were the case, that is not the way in which we should legislate. The Bill's reference to any "anticipated change" in Community law is far too general. Under the heading "Matters of Principle", with respect to delegated legislation, there is an authoritative statement on constitutional law:
	"There is a clear threat to parliamentary government if power is delegated to legislate on matters of general policy or if so wide a discretion is conferred that it is impossible to be sure what limit the legislature intended to impose."
	There is no way in which it can be established under article 2—and paragraph 3 of that article in particular—what the numbers will be. Therefore, it is inappropriate and wrong to legislate in this fashion, particularly when there is an option, which is to spell out in the amendment what is done under the protocol.
	I am not saying that, irrespective of my concern about the Nice treaty as a whole, I will take the gravest exception to the proposal, to the point at which I say that we will not allow the enlargement process to continue. I have made that clear in Committee. However, I do not believe that the Government should set a unique precedent—nobody has given me any indication that this has been done before—by extending their ability, by an order-making power, to say that, in anticipation of a change in European Union law, they will bring in an order to do this, that or the other. However, that would be within the remit of the sovereignty of the UK Parliament, because it would involve an Act of our Parliament that we could adjust if we so wished. In the context we are discussing, we could not simply adjust the measure.
	As I have told the Minister several times, under that protocol, if a different number results from the referendum process—because some countries did not participate—the Council will adopt a decision "to that effect". That means, first, that the Council will have the broadest possible powers in respect of drawing up Community law as a whole, with all the instruments at its disposal, such as the power of regulation and the Commission powers and so on; and, secondly, that the decision will, in effect, already have been taken.
	The protocol determines the basis for prescribing the total number of members. It notes that if the total number of members referred to in paragraph 2, which gives the UK allocation as 72, is less than 732, a pro-rata correction will be applied—as the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) has just pointed out—to the number of representatives to be elected in each member state, so that the total number is as close as possible to 732, but that such a correction should not lead to the number of representatives to be elected in each member state being higher than that provided for in article 190. That is where I would ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his point.
	The position appears to be that there cannot be a higher number, but I am more concerned about the principle that lies behind the provision. A pre-emptive decision will have been taken under a protocol which is binding on us under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 because, as I have already pointed out, a protocol is to be regarded as a treaty for these purposes.
	A further problem for the Government is that to take such a wide power is both inconsistent with normal constitutional principles and, in the context of EC law, would create a precedent that could be applied to any order-making power by using those magic words. That would thus obviate some of the difficulties that the Government have already experienced in getting certain elements of European legislation through the House.
	Section 2 of the 1972 Act strongly suggests that we should give serious consideration to revising the arrangements. Subsection (2) authorises the making of Orders in Council and ministerial regulations to implement
	"Community obligations of the United Kingdom".
	It enables rights under Community treaties to be exercised
	"for the purpose of dealing with matters arising out of or related to any such obligation or rights".
	That refers not to Community law, but to Community obligations, yet there can be no obligation at this stage because we do not know the outcome of the referendums. There can be only a hypothesis, so there can be no obligation. Furthermore, the use of the words "Community law" does not dovetail with the wording in section 2 of the 1972 Act.
	Section 12 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 consolidates section 6 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. Incidentally, in the case of Prince, serious doubts were raised as to the vires of that provision as a matter of constitutional law. Section 12 deals with treaty ratification and states:
	"No treaty which provides for any increase in the powers of the European Parliament is to be ratified by the United Kingdom unless it has been approved by an Act of Parliament . . . In this section"—
	which dovetails with section (2) of the 1972 Act—
	"·treaty' includes any international agreement, and . . . any protocol"—
	of the kind set out in the Nice treaty—
	"annex to a treaty or international agreement."
	We have already observed, however, that under the protocol the Council has already decreed, in advance of the referendums, that it shall adopt a decision "to that effect". As that is part of a protocol that is defined for the purposes of section (2) as a treaty and as it certainly provides for an increase in the powers of the European Parliament—which is what the measure is all about—it should not be ratified by the United Kingdom unless it has been approved by an Act of Parliament. The 2002 Act does not provide that it should be by order of the unelected Lord High Chancellor on instructions from the unelected European Commission.
	I put some of those points of principle to the Minister, but received no satisfactory reply. However, the points are important; they raise questions about the construction of a Bill that gives order-making powers to the EC under some future Community law that has not yet been devised, but which is postulated as already in effect. The powers are similar to the Henry VIII procedure for modifying Acts of Parliament, which so many of us find objectionable, but which at least we can control. However, we cannot control Community law, so that raises questions about the sovereignty of Parliament.
	The Government are going down an extremely difficult and dangerous path. They may be driven by convenience or expediency, but I do not believe for one minute that the people of this country contemplated that such principles would ever be proposed. They will certainly not be acceptable.

John Redwood: But are not the Government being entirely logical? Are they not saying, "We have absolutely no influence over the matter; we shall be told what to do by the European Commission in future; we are useless at negotiating and we shall be unable to control it; so why give a toss about Parliament either"?

William Cash: Indeed. That is very much the tenor of my article in The Daily Telegraph today on House of Lords reform. The issue relates to democracy. I said much the same in a debate on scrutiny and accountability in Westminster Hall last week. This stuff comes up over and over again. It is about our legal and practical co-operation with Europe. However, if we have order-making powers whose effect is to make presumptions about their operation in practice, and which run against the principles adumbrated by the courts, we have a process that I have called "Wolsey's revenge". That Lord High Chancellor dared to challenge the king but managed to escape by dying just in time. None the less, we now have a new Lord High Chancellor, who comes along and tells Parliament, "We will legislate, using this order-making power and my unelected authority, to drive through the provisions on future Community law." That is offensive to the constitutional principles on which our legislative process is founded.

John Redwood: Surely the moral of my hon. Friend's excellent tale is that Wolsey was a Euro-enthusiast, and he was, of course, replaced by Britain's first and greatest Eurosceptic, Thomas Cromwell. Is not there hope for us all if we can build on that model?

William Cash: There is indeed, but I would also point out to my right hon. Friend that the fate of Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell is not one that I would want visited on anyone.

John Gummer: I wonder whether our common religious position would not make us both very wary of being too supportive of Thomas Cromwell, whose history in such matters was thoroughly disgraceful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have heard enough history; perhaps we can return to the present day.

William Cash: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker; otherwise we shall all be hanged, drawn and quartered—not on your instructions, I am sure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not one of the powers of the occupant of the Chair.

William Cash: I wish to refer to the problem that arises in respect of regulations made under those provisions. Again, under section 2 of the 1972 Act, regulations can be introduced by a designated Minister for the purpose of implementing Community obligations. However, schedule 2 to that Act says that regulations may not be used for a number of purposes, one of which is taxation; another is a provision having retrospective effect. If the issue has already been decided, there is an "Alice in Wonderland", Lewis Carroll quality to the problem.

Tony Cunningham: I often feel that I am in an "Alice in Wonderland" situation when the hon. Gentleman is speaking.

William Cash: Well, as I said on another occasion, words mean what we choose them to mean; the question is:
	"which is to be master—that's all."
	The masters are undoubtedly those who are pulling the strings to get such an order through. They are instrumental in ensuring that the provision, which has already been determined, states that the Council will adopt a decision to that effect and that it will be implemented. However, the provision could well turn out to be retrospective.
	We know that the provision is based on a hypothesis; we do not know which referendums will be successful, and to get their ducks in a row or to get the pieces of the jigsaw into the right pattern, the Government may have to make adjustments by order that could well infringe the principles of schedule 2 to the 1972 Act by making a provision that has retrospective effect. There is a further restriction under schedule 2 to the 1972 Act, which refers to a power-delegating legislative authority. Again, that provision could well fall foul of those arrangements.
	We are considering a Bill, and I am very conscious of the fact that the votes are against us. The Minister has indicated during our proceedings that there is nothing much that I can do about such things anyway because, after all, they are Community obligations—she uses the phrase "Community law" in the Bill—and therefore I will have to put up with them. However, I can tell her that I will not put up with them. We in Parliament should not simply have it dished out to us that this is the way in which we legislate as a matter of principle. Serious questions lie at the heart of this debate.
	Again, as recently as 2001, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was involved in the case of Orange, the mobile phone company. The court said that although the power to make Community subordinate legislation had been widely construed, the Government must clearly indicate what primary legislation is being repealed or amended when that procedure is invoked. Perhaps we will find ourselves in difficulty about that as well.
	I cannot prejudge what a court would say in that context, but I can give the general principles on which such things are determined and construed. For example, the European Court of Justice has asserted that it has supremacy over our legislation. I can say that, without a shadow of a doubt, that is not the case. Indeed, many authorities—Lord Denning and Lord McCarthy—can be cited, and Lord Bridge said that all this was based on the voluntary agreement that we entered into in 1972. Well, it may have been voluntary in 1972, but if we were to introduce legislation the effect of which was inconsistent with section 2 of the 1972 Act, there would certainly be a conflict between what the European Court of Justice said and what was implemented under the 1972 Act, which stated that we must obey the rulings of that Court.
	I shall not demur from that view in so far as I believe in the rule of law, but I will not accept the idea that, for all time, we are bound by the acquis communautaire and we cannot legislate on our own terms if we wish to do so. The provision raises those questions of principle, and they have not been properly examined, so I should be interested to see how the argument develops.

Angela Watkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, I served on the Committee that considered the Bill. During the debates in Committee, he said:
	"The courts can strike down legislation for a lack of certainty."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 January 2003; c. 46.]
	He went on to say that it is not satisfactory to legislate on the basis of hypothesis or anticipated change. Will he say to which courts he was referring in that comment? Is it in the powers of our own courts to strike down such legislation; or are they subservient to the European courts?

William Cash: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Such things could be dealt with initially by our own courts but then referred, via the House of Lords, to the European Court of Justice. Alternatively, the House of Lords could adjudicate on its own terms in implementing the jurisprudence, which has tended to evolve, whereby the House of Lords tends to agree with what the European Court has ruled. That is a matter for Parliament, and a great deal of judicial activism is going on in that business. I say unequivocally that I regard the question of certainty as something for the United Kingdom courts to determine, but I cannot stop the appeals process because, as I have said, I subscribe to the rule of law.
	I am concerned about the political and constitutional consequences of such things, which are even coming to bear on the Prime Minister in relation to article 3 of the European convention on human rights, where it is unambiguously the case—as Lord Hoffmann said in the case of Simms and O'Brien in 1999—that the British Parliament can legislate in a manner inconsistent with the convention provided that it does so expressly and unambiguously. I believe that that doctrine continues in relation to the 1972 Act, although I am well aware that that is not accepted by those in the European Court of Justice.

Lady Hermon: I do not find it helpful to confuse the jurisprudence of the European convention on human rights with that of the European Court of Human Rights. The hon. Gentleman will know perfectly well that the supremacy of Community law is paramount. Can he cite one case—just one—in which a British court has not given supremacy to Community law?

William Cash: What I can do is to indicate, as I did earlier, that the McCarthy decision, for example, clearly ran counter to some of the subsequent decisions. According to the authorities that I have at my disposal, there is no doubt at all that the issue has not been resolved, despite the statements by Sir William Wade and others that there has been a revolution in these questions. I can sum that up by reference to the authority's conclusion in the chapter on the United Kingdom and the European Union, which says that, although constitutional dogma has been shaken, the problem of sovereignty has not been adequately resolved, but it is unlikely that everyone would agree now with the view expressed in 1972 that the ultimate supremacy of Parliament will not be affected, and it will not be affected because it cannot be affected. Crucially, that is because it emanates from the 1972 Act. The authority also states that only time will tell whether that is a problem of any practical significance and, if so, whether closer political union at Community level can be built on such foundations. That raises the issue of extrapolation of ideas, the extension of the European Court, and the issue of European integration, the convention and the constitution, which is coming down the track like a runaway train.
	Although that is a specific example, the reality is that it shows in embryonic form the nature of the problem. In response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), case law indicates that the supremacy of Community law is not a given. Whether it is open to us to obviate the difficulties by addressing the manner in which the European Communities Act 1972 is devised, however, is a question of political will and of constitutional issues, without prejudice to the fact that, generally, through judicial activism, there has been an increasing tendency for our courts to agree to the emanations from the European Court of Justice. We are reaching breaking point, however, and some would say that we have gone past it.

Lady Hermon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention from me. The principle of the sovereignty of Community law has been on the statute book, certainly at the European Court of Justice, since 1962 and the famous case of Costa v. ENEL. To return to clause 2(2), it states that the power that the Lord Chancellor may exercise is confined to
	"any change or anticipated change under Community law in the total number of MEPs".
	That is very precise. Given that Community law is supreme, if the number of MEPs changes, does he agree that the UK Parliament and Government must comply with that?

William Cash: I have already given my reasoning on that point with respect to the interaction of the protocol and paragraph (3). A number of serious points arise, and it is not necessary for me to repeat what I have already said. The hon. Lady refers to the question of case law whereas I refer to the constitutional question. A substantial area must be considered very carefully, and I do not think that the natural consequences of going down the route that has been assumed so far can be taken for granted.
	With respect to clause 4, which would implement the changes in the number of UK MEPs, the Lord Chancellor would have the power by order to give effect to a change—not an anticipated change but an actual change—under Community law. I take exception to the term "Community law" in that context. For similar reasons as before, I have substituted the wording in the protocol. The Minister will be aware that what I am doing is perhaps somewhat improbable. The Prime Minister once said to me in the Lobby, when I was raising a matter of European law, "I wouldn't have thought that you would have accepted that," but I accept the law as it stands. Whether I think that it is right, fair or can be changed is a separate issue. That is why I am putting the Government to the test. If they are to rely on article 2 of protocol A, to which I refer in my amendment, why not stick to it? It is as simple as that. Why go through the paraphernalia of using the words,
	"or anticipated change under Community law"?
	I wait to hear what other Members of the House, and in particular the Minister, have to say.

David Heath: I offer my commiserations to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who is struggling manfully with whatever is afflicting him: it cannot be easy to make long speeches with such a problem.
	The words "convenience" and "expediency" have been mentioned more than once during our consideration of the Bill. The Government have again phrased the Bill in such a way as to give themselves maximum flexibility to allow for circumstances that they have not yet considered. The problem is that that is not the proper way for Parliament to approach legislation. The Bill creates a power that Parliament might well not want to be exercised without primary legislation. The hon. Member for Stone tabled several amendments on this matter in Committee, with some of which I disagreed because their effect would have been to blow the Bill apart.
	There are two considerations: the point at which the Lord Chancellor asks the Electoral Commission to undertake its preliminary work and that at which the Lord Chancellor introduces orders to implement those changes. On the ground of expediency, I was less than happy at the prospect of delaying the start of the preparatory work, as every indication was that that would mean that we could not provide for representation at the 2004 European elections. I was equally unhappy with the contention that the Government would deliberately bring about circumstances in which the UK was under-represented, which is not a likely scenario.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Stone that there is a problem with introducing legislation under which any change to the composition of the European Parliament could be enacted through secondary legislation on the say-so of the Lord Chancellor—an unelected Minister, as we have discussed—without the House having the opportunity to debate it as primary legislation. The problem concerns every matter that is introduced as a result of a treaty, but that does not initially require primary legislation. The Government can accept by treaty and through the royal prerogative matters that should properly be the province of the elected House of Commons.
	Although this provision is a minor one in the great scheme of things, it could mean that, after treaty negotiations, the Government could opt for changes in the composition of the European Parliament to be dealt with by secondary rather than by primary legislation. That is not satisfactory. When we questioned the Minister about that in Committee, she first suggested that article 2 of protocol A was insufficient in itself because it did not talk about the Council of Ministers. I have considered that point, but cannot accept that construction. The process is clearly laid out in article 2, and the article cannot be construed in any way that would not allow for that process.

John Redwood: Will the Liberal Democrats join the Conservatives in saying that there must be a referendum on the constitutional changes now unfolding in the European Union, as well as on the euro should the Government ever brave that tricky subject?

David Heath: Mr. Deputy Speaker is looking at me in a way that I take to mean that my embarking on a debate on that subject would be out of order. That debate may therefore have to wait for another day. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and my party's position has always been that any major constitutional change should be put to a referendum of the British people. We pressed for one during the debates on the Maastricht treaty. My party has led the field. Without straying from the subject of this debate, I think that I have dealt with the intervention.
	The proposal of the hon. Member for Stone deals with the specific treaty requirement that underlies the provenance of the Bill. It is an unexceptional statement, and the Government are clearly relying on the requirement for this change. The process exists and includes provision for pro rata reductions should some of the applicant countries not ratify their membership of the European Union. That may be the case, as there will be a sequence of referendums in many of them, some of which might result in their Parliaments not ratifying the treaty of accession.
	That is all inherent in article 2 of protocol A, so I do not understand why this Bill, which is a limited measure that deals with the specific question of the reduction in the number of British MEPs needed to comply with the accession of the applicant countries, should contain a phrase that is any wider than the specific protocol. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind with his amendment, and I find it difficult to argue against that proposition.

William Cash: I do not invite the hon. Gentleman to go down this route, but I merely make the further point that the use of this formula would mean that huge amounts of legislation could be decided in the Council of Ministers or any other forum. The consequence would be that such forums would simply say, "Let it be done." That would be that.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman sets out the argument of the slippery slope. It is easy to make and, by extrapolation, he extends it to an apocalyptic outcome. I am not sure that I would necessarily go as far as he does, but I accept that the provision of a wide interpretation that allows the Government to avoid the need to return to the House for primary legislation affords them a possibility that should not be afforded to an Executive. It should not be a case of the European Union deciding matters without the House having an opportunity to debate them.

William Cash: The House as a whole has not heard these arguments, so I return to the question of the accession treaty. The Minister said that it would have to be introduced to give effect to the results of the referendums. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I agreed in Committee, that treaty would bring the moving picture to the point at which we knew where we were. We could have implemented the measure at that point without all this hypothetical and unconstitutional manoeuvring.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. We had such a debate and I tabled an amendment that would have made the treaty of accession a trigger point for implementation. The Government rejected that.
	I have sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but I do not go along with all his arguments about the consequences. The measure is much more limited than he suggests. However, as a matter of principle, the House should determine and ratify that which is decided for it by the Executive in their treaty negotiations. I am not sure that a Henry VIII clause could be said to apply to a Cardinal Wolsey figure, but there is an element of such a clause in the provision. I instinctively reject that.

John Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) for drawing the House's attention to the crucial matter of principle that arises from the power that we are now debating in detail. He is right that the principle that the Government seek to establish could have many evil consequences if it were followed more generally in the treatment of European legislation. Cannot even the Minister see that it is a democratic outrage to ask the House to legislate in advance of agreements, deals and decisions elsewhere and to accept whatever takes places and in whatever circumstances without it having the opportunity to reconsider and to introduce the normal primary legislation that we would expect for matters of constitutional and democratic significance?
	There used to be a strong principle in the House—the Government have destroyed it along with many other traditions—that any constitutional matter had to be debated at the length that the House chose and on the Floor of the House. We always thought that the constitution was so important that it was right that every Member of Parliament should have free and unfettered access to such a debate and that the debate should carry on for as long as the House saw fit even if it went on for much longer than the Government of the day wanted. We are now told that an important constitutional matter—the style and number of the representatives that we have in the European Parliament—can be determined by an unelected Minister and rammed through in a statutory instrument with very limited debate and no scope for amendment.
	The Liberal Democrats' spokesman was typically wimpish when I asked him whether the British people should be entitled to express their view on the clause and the wider principles behind it. All the electorates in the applicant states get a vote and the voters in places such as the Republic of Ireland have a vote on enlargement. The British people do not get a vote and so cannot express their view on this crucial matter. Their Parliament is now invited by a Government with a very big majority to ram through an unsatisfactory Bill with this crucial power at its heart. That will prevent or stifle debate.

Lady Hermon: If it is true that the British public feel so strongly about the European Parliament, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why—with the exception of Northern Ireland where voters come out and vote in any election because they feel passionately about the results—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is taking the argument far outside the bounds of the amendment.

John Redwood: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	It is important to distinguish between the wish to vote in an election and the wish to vote on the constitutional settlement of this country. Many people might want to vote against a widening of the European Parliament and its representation because they are not impressed by it, but they are not given the opportunity to express that view and their Parliament is being asked to accept this unsatisfactory legislation.
	My only worry about the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is the modesty of his amendments. He welcomed the protocol and the intent of the negotiation. I do not think that it was a good deal well done because so much of it was unnecessary for enlargement. The applicant states need free trade, which they seem unable to get from the European Union, but do not need much of what will be forced on them and us. There is a problem with his proposals, but they are much better than the Government's.

William Cash: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but he might remember that I tabled about 240 amendments to the Nice treaty and such matters were covered in principle at the time. I have said that once something has been done, we can say that we did not like it, but equally we can say that we wish to renegotiate it. I did what I did with a sense of purpose, which was also the case with the Amsterdam and Maastricht treaties, and much of what I said at the time has come about.

John Redwood: I agree entirely and am full of praise for my hon. Friend's energetic work. I was not criticising him but merely remarking—I think that he would agree—that his proposed remedy to the difficulty is modest and partial. There are much bigger sins of commission and omission in the underlying treaty and negotiation that we cannot discuss under the amendment or solve tonight. Despite all that, I urge the House to vote for his amendment. It goes some way to dealing with the problem and certainly highlights for those in the press and public who are interested in such arcane but important matters that there is a big problem. We must stop the Government getting the idea that they can legislate in increasingly general terms and then ram all the important detail through at any date in the future through statutory instruments, which cannot be amended and can be debated only at short length.

John Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Government are confident that they can railroad through a facilitating provision that allows them to agree to a reduction in British representation in the European Parliament without proper debate, thereby showing a contempt for the institution, it is scarcely surprising if the British people feel precisely such a contempt themselves?

John Redwood: I agree. According to the enthusiasts for Europe, we have missed the train in Europe, but it has come to my attention during the debate that, not only have we missed it, but it is going to run us down, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) remarked.

John Gummer: rose—

John Redwood: I give way to my right hon. Friend.

John Gummer: I am waiting to be called to speak.

John Redwood: I thought that my right hon. Friend wanted to intervene. He will be delighted to know that I am about to finish.
	The Bill is a thoroughly bad piece of legislation. The Opposition are right to highlight its deficiencies and propose remedies. I hope that the House will vote for the amendment because it goes a little way to tackle a huge underlying problem as Parliament is invited to undertake a very undemocratic act.

John Gummer: I am concerned lest the pre-judgments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) should mislead the House into mistaking the importance of refusing the Government permission to do what they wish to do. The treaty of Nice is perfectly reasonable. I am pleased about enlargement and happy that the Conservative party is in favour of it, although one might not always think that that is so.
	I am determined to make it clear that the most important and valuable thing that we have done since the war is to become part of the European Union. I very much hope that we continue to play a proper part, instead of a semi-detached one, in the building of that association, which is so important for both our peace and prosperity. However, that does not give the Government an excuse to railroad the House. That is the issue. I am afraid that my right hon. and hon. Friends undermine their position by taking an anti-European line. The problem has nothing to do with that; it is about the defence of the House.
	The Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary are both distinguished in the quality of their independence. They must be just as appalled as I am at how the House's ability to control the Executive is being undermined day after day—usually under the foolish word "modernisation". It may be that the Conservative party is taking longer to replace the Labour party than I should like, but we must remember that one day Labour Members will have to keep the Executive in order themselves. What they have done to the House will rebound on them. That is why the proposal is so damaging.
	I wish to be a little sharp with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. I deeply resent the concept of yet another referendum. This House has the parliamentary role. We must not allow the world out there to believe that we abdicate our duty by holding a referendum every time we have a difficult thing to do. The thing about referendums is that one can never find the people who voted the wrong way afterwards. There is no responsibility—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have indulged the right hon. Gentleman a few moments longer than perhaps I strictly should. We are hearing too much about election turnout and the merits, or otherwise, of the referendum as a constitutional device. We should return to the particular matter under consideration.

John Gummer: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me enough time to get off my chest something that I have been wishing to say for some time. I much appreciate it. It is very helpful to have such an opportunity.
	On the precise issue, I hope that the Government will not take it too hard when those of us who enthusiastically favour our membership of the European Union tell them that it is important not to besmirch our relationships with the rest of Europe by doing things that appear to be less than wholly democratic, parliamentary and defensive of the British tradition of how we do things.

John Redwood: I want to put things straight between us. I am very much of my right hon. Friend's view, as I think he is of mine, that the main affront tonight is the lack of British democracy in how we handle such important matters now and in future. I am sure that we can make strong common cause, both in our remarks and in the Division Lobby, by saying that we must believe in and practise parliamentary democracy in the House. The Bill does the opposite.

John Gummer: I am glad that my right hon. Friend and I are on the same side. From time to time, we find that a great support and pleasure. I think that on this issue we will be as one.
	The key issue that I hope that the Government will think through is that it is often proper for European law to override the law of individual countries—otherwise, it would not be possible to have a single market, for example. Even the former Prime Minister, powerful though she was in some of her statements, recognised that we could not agree to something in the single market only to find that French or German law overrode it. It is funny how we are usually more willing to allow our laws to override such things than other people's laws. It is a curious element in our dealings with the rest of Europe. However, there are times when any sensible single market or concept of political co-operation needs European law to override domestic law.
	If the public are to accept that, it is important that we do not extend those rights into areas where they are not necessary. The Government do not need to take any more power than they need. Because they are seeking to do more than is strictly necessary, many of us feel endangered. They ought to think seriously about the matter, as they need to tread softy and carefully reassure people who may otherwise be worried. I do not want them to be troubled by some of the more extreme fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, but he also expressed some reasonable fears.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend's reference to extreme fears has brought me to my feet. I am extremely concerned about the democracy of the House, which is why I tabled the amendments. I have been mildly rebuked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for not going far enough, but what I have done is to stand up for democracy in the House and for democracy for other people in Europe; and referendums, which are not disclosed in the provisions, are the means whereby this legislation will affect them—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Apart from a tendency to go down memory lane, the hon. Gentleman is trying to expand his argument too far.

John Gummer: I shall not follow my hon. Friend's example, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was hoping to bring him onside, as I did not want him to feel under too much attack from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham for the form of the amendment. It is perfectly reasonable—it says that we favour the principle, but that the method of implementation is not the best. If the Government are not keen on it, I am sure that they could restrict their powers in a different way. If they did, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, in a spirit of friendship, which is in his nature, would accept that. However, if they do not, there is a reasonable feeling across the country that they are trying to pinch a bit of unnecessary extra power, which is par for the course.

Lady Hermon: I shall keep my remarks short this time. If there is a change or an anticipated change under community law in the total number of MEPs, the Lord Chancellor may by notice require the Electoral Commission to make a recommendation. Clause 2(5) says that a recommendation made under clause 2
	"must be published by the Electoral Commission and laid before Parliament by the Lord Chancellor".
	Does that give the right hon. Gentleman peace of mind and reassurance?

John Gummer: Having been a Member of Parliament for as long as I fear I have been, I know that there are some mechanisms that do not amount to much. If I may say so, that mechanism is one such and does not provide power. However, the mechanism is not the real problem. I cannot understand why the Government want to take an extra step when they could achieve the end that they desire in a way that is acceptable to the whole House.
	This is a constitutional debate, but it is not anything like as worrying as is sometimes claimed. We are inclined to treat every issue as if it were the most important one, but with constitutional issues it is better to tread softly than go too far. In the past, people have dealt with such issues by achieving a necessary end in a way that is acceptable to the whole House.

John Bercow: The Government are antipathetic to the amendments because as an Administration they are characterised by ministerial impatience. They do not want to accept them because in future, when they want to act, they do not want to have to listen to views other than their own. The purpose of debate here, however, is not merely to seek to change ministerial minds, but to enable the electorate to be more aware of the arguments and alternative points of view.

John Gummer: As so often, my hon. Friend has put his finger on the problem, and explained why I have tried to draw a distinction between the issue and the European ramifications. It is rare for me to be enthusiastic about being on the same side as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but on this occasion we are as one. The issue is a constitutional one—it is about seeking to limit Parliament's powers as little as possible to achieve the necessary end. No sensible person would deny that we need to achieve the end envisaged in the Bill, because we want enlargement of the European Union and to be able to meet our obligations in such a union. At the same time, we want to do so by as limited a method as possible. It would be no skin off the Government's nose if they helped everyone to feel that they had tried to get close to 100 per cent. backing on a constitutional matter rather than leaving us divided on something on which we do not need to be divided. The Government can achieve their ends and we can protect the constitutional position, which is the Opposition's duty, and normally one that the Government accept.

Tony Cunningham: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said that in days gone by constitutional issues could be debated for a long time. I do not want people to get the idea that the Bill has not been debated at tremendous length. In Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) spoke for about 90 per cent. of the time, but we finished with a free sitting.

John Bercow: That really will not do at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Yvette Cooper: We covered these issues quite extensively in Committee, when I gave full answers to many of the points made by the Opposition today. I am pleased that the throat of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is holding out, and I commend its endurance.

John Bercow: I greatly admire the hon. Lady, as she knows, and I am sorry to interrupt her at such an early stage in her speech. However, it is exceptionally irritating to be told that the amendments, or at least their purport, have been substantially debated in Committee. I merely put it to her that it is important to bear in mind the fact that the Bill is now on Report. I was not privileged to serve as a Committee member, but I am entitled to hear the arguments, including hers.

Yvette Cooper: We were obviously deeply disappointed not to have enjoyed the company of the hon. Gentleman in Committee—he would have been a joy. I am happy to rehearse again many of the key points, but I question the decision of the hon. Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to make points that they had the chance to make repeatedly in Committee.

William Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can repeat his point.

William Cash: I am not going to make my point again, but wish to say that the point that I made about section 12 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 was an additional point. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) are valid—the Bill is a constitutional measure and should have been taken on the Floor of the House.

Yvette Cooper: We have already dealt with many of the substantial points made by the hon. Gentleman, but I am happy to go through them again. As we have made clear throughout, the Bill's purpose is to allow a mechanism for the implementation of the treaty of Nice.
	The treaty of Nice provides for the reduced number of MEPs that would be in place once all the states had acceded. It also provides for the Council to take decisions on the interim position and to make pro rata adjustments in accordance with the treaty. We should be in no doubt that we can implement the numbers set out in the treaty and the interim arrangements. The problem with the amendment and with attempts to restrict the relevant provisions in the Bill too much is that we might end up being able to implement the precise details set out in the treaty—the bottom-line position, which means that the UK should reduce the number of its MEPs to 72—but not be able confidently to give effect to the Council's decision on the interim position, which is provided for in the treaty, but on which a decision has not yet been taken. There is therefore a danger that we might not be able to implement the provision for 78 MEPs, and we would end up with fewer MEPs than Opposition Members say they want.

John Gummer: Perhaps the hon. Lady can help me. Why is it not possible for her so to arrange things that she could ask Parliament about the matter? Why does she feel we would be excluded if we adopted the arrangement that would be most natural to us? We would set out the two most likely circumstances, and, if things did not turn out like that, the Government would return to Parliament and allow it to make its decision in plenty of time for it to be implemented. There would be no need to hold anything up for that, but at least Parliament would make the decision.

Yvette Cooper: We have ratified the treaty of Nice, which sets out the bottom line. The interim position needs to be achieved by a pro rata adjustment. We have done that. The matter has been debated and has gone through the parliamentary procedures. We have set out the final position and the basis on which the interim position will be decided. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the matter needs to come back before Parliament, which is why it will be dealt with through an order. He seems to be asking for primary legislation in order to implement interim arrangements, the details of which were set out in the treaty of Nice and endorsed by Parliament.

John Gummer: I perfectly understand the hon. Lady's explanation. I merely suggest to her that these issues cause considerable concern and worry, often needlessly. In the circumstances, surely a Government with their ear to the ground and with fingertip control would go the extra mile to give Parliament the opportunity to make the decision, so that it did not feel bypassed.

Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman overstates his case. It is clearly right that Parliament should ratify the treaty of Nice. That is exactly what happened. The treaty sets out the process for reducing the number of MEPs to ensure that the states joining the European Union can have representation. It sets out that representation in exact numbers, once all the accession states have joined. It also states clearly that the interim arrangements will need to made on the basis of a pro rata adjustment. That leaves no freedom to manoeuvre in the process that we will have to go through, but it is important that the Council decision is implemented; otherwise, we will not be able to allow other European countries to get their fair representation in time for the 2004 elections. Perhaps that is the agenda of some Opposition Members.

John Redwood: Is there not an easy way out? Why does not the Minister say that the House is right to want to consider the matter once we know the answer? When we know how many Members of the European Parliament need to be elected at the next election, all she has to do is to get the business managers to give her a day or two on the Floor of the House to bring the necessary amendment before us as primary legislation, and all will be well. It is not as though the House has very much to do. It is going home terribly early every night because it does not have enough business, and there are lots of Fridays when it does not sit at all. People outside do not understand why we do not do a decent day's work every day. Why cannot we have some time to do as I suggest?

Yvette Cooper: I am sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is not enjoying his early morning rises in order to get to the House. Astonishingly, he seemed at one point to be accusing the hon. Member for Stone of not being Eurosceptic enough, which seemed to trouble the hon. Gentleman. Opposition Members are simply trying to put hurdles in the way of the accession states ensuring fair representation in the European Parliament: that, in the end, is what all this is about.
	We are going through a sensible process. The order will come back before Parliament once the Council decision has been taken.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: In a minute.
	It is perfectly sensible that the Council's decision should be implemented to complete the process. We discussed extensively in Committee the fact that future alterations to the number of MEPs must be made in accordance with a treaty or by virtue of a requirement in a treaty. The number of MEPs is set out in a treaty and, under article 5, cannot be changed, except in accordance with a treaty.

David Heath: Will the hon. Lady confirm, however, that, unless the clause is amended, a future treaty that included a change in the number of MEPs would be implemented through primary legislation, not secondary legislation?

Yvette Cooper: A future treaty would have to be ratified in this country; that is how we have always handled important treaties.

David Heath: This is a key point. We have no provision for the ratification of a treaty, other than for those matters that require a change in UK law. If a change in UK law was not needed because the matter was to be dealt with through secondary legislation, it would not be ratified by the House or anyone else; it would be made simply on the say-so of Government.

Yvette Cooper: I appreciate that hon. Members are desperate to place hurdles in the way of the reforms that we need to put in place, but—

John Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: It would be nice to be able to answer one intervention before taking another. I will give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), as it is always a pleasure to hear the points that he makes.
	There has been plenty of discussion throughout the Bill's passage through the House. I can testify to the extensive debates that we had in Committee, not only on the final numbers set out in the treaty of Nice, but on the interim arrangements. We have debated the Bill as primary legislation. The order setting out the interim arrangements for the number of MEPs as a result of the Council decision will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will also have the opportunity to ratify the treaty of accession. There are ample safeguards for Parliament, and we are dealing with such a transitional issue—the number of MEPs, which must be established by a pro rata adjustment. That is not a number that can be plucked out of thin air by the European Commission or the European Council. There is not a wide range of decisions that need to be taken. A narrow decision has to be implemented in respect of the transitional arrangements for when some states accede. It is right that we give those countries the right to representation.

John Bercow: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I give way briefly to the hon. Member for Buckingham, if he can remember what he was going to ask.

John Bercow: I can always remember what I was going to ask.
	I simply put it to the hon. Lady that it would be wise and gracious for her to accept that in arguing that pushing something through via secondary legislation is different from an alternative to, and is less than, proper ratification, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was absolutely right. The hon. Lady, I am sorry to say, was absolutely wrong.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is mistaking two completely different issues. I have said that the order will go through the affirmative procedure. I have made no comment about the ratification procedure. Hon. Members are putting hurdles in the way.
	What is at stake is that other countries should be able to accede to the European Union. We should support that, and we should give them their fair representation. Opposition Members say that they want enlargement, that they want other countries to be able to accede, but they do not want to give them their representation in the European Parliament.

John Gummer: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I shall not give way. We have had considerable debate.
	We must give those countries fair representation. That involves reducing the number of MEPs from this country, and also from other countries right across Europe. It is the fair thing to do in order to ensure that countries acceding to the European Union receive their fair representation. I am sorry that Opposition Members choose not to support that.

William Cash: I have only one point to make, which is that the Minister has answered none of the matters raised: zero. She has given absolutely no response. She did not deal with the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, and she did not deal with the principal matters raised by many right hon. and hon. Members. In her final remarks, she completely failed to answer the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and I and others raised, which is implicit in my amendment: what is it that leads the hon. Lady to need to substitute for the precise wording of the protocol the words
	"any . . . anticipated change under Community law"?
	She has failed miserably to answer those questions.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 287.

Question accordingly negatived.

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 27 page 2, line 27 [Clause 2], leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	'(4) In determining what recommendation to make for the distribution of any total number of MEPs, the Electoral Commission must ensure that—
	(a) each electoral region (other than Northern Ireland) is allocated at least four MEPs;
	(b) Northern Ireland is allocated at least three MEPs; and
	(c) the ratio of electors to MEPs is as nearly as possible the same in each electoral region.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 29 [Clause 2], leave out 'and'.
	Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 29 [Clause 2], at end insert—
	'(aa) Scotland is allocated at least eight MEPs;
	(ab) Wales is allocated at least five MEPs; and;
	Amendment No. 4, in page 5, line 5 [Clause 8], leave out 'and Wales'.
	Amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 11 [Clause 9], leave out 'and Wales'.
	Amendment No. 6, in page 9, line 36 [Clause 19], leave out subsection 2.
	Amendment No. 7, in page 10, line 38 [Clause 21], leave out 'and Wales'.

David Heath: The amendment returns us to an issue that we discussed in Committee: the impact of the electoral system for Members of the European Parliament on regions that have a smaller number of MEPs to elect. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when the original European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 was introduced we had long and conflicting arguments about the precise way in which the Government's decision to introduce a system of proportional representation for European parliamentary elections was implemented. My colleagues and I took the view—indeed, I believe that I was speaking for my party on the issue at the time—that a closed-list system was not preferable to an open-list one. I think that subsequent events have proved us right. The country has not been persuaded that a system that gives people the opportunity to vote not for individual candidates, but on the basis of a party list, gives them the latitude that they would like to exercise in deciding who represents them.
	With a reduction in the total number of MEPs, an issue has come to light regarding the position of parliamentary regions—only one region, the north-east, will be affected by the change in question, as a result of the treaty of Nice—that elect a limited number of MEPs. One of the perverse effects of the electoral system that the former Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, chose to implement is that proportionality reduces markedly when there is a limited number of MEPs to be elected. The north-east elects four MEPs, and it is anticipated that that will reduce to three once the Bill takes effect and the changes to the constitution of the European Parliament are in place. That will result in a very imperfect match between the votes cast for each candidate and the proportionality of the result. That does not apply in the case of Northern Ireland, which has only three MEPs at present—that will continue under the Bill and my amendment would not change that position—because, uniquely among the regions and countries of the United Kingdom, it has a provision for a single transferable vote system, which is proportional even in small numbers. I fear that I will lose the attention of the House completely if I go into detail about the relative merits of the d'Hondt and the Sainte-Lague methods of calculating arithmetical progressions for the purpose of determining proportionality, and you will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to do so even if tempted or prompted, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, I would point out that the d'Hondt formula exacerbates that problem.
	I speak from a position of disinterest, because my party would not necessarily be the beneficiary of any change of the kind that I propose in amendment No. 1. That may not be the case in the future, given present trends in the opinion polls, but on past political performance in the north-east we would not necessarily benefit. However, as a matter of principle, if we claim to have a system that is proportional across the country, it is both perverse and wrong to introduce an anomaly by design. That is why my amendment would provide a floor, so that each region, with the exception of Northern Ireland, would have at least four MEPs.

Lady Hermon: Given that thousands of people who left Northern Ireland during the appalling troubles that we endured for 30 years have returned since the Belfast agreement, why would the hon. Gentleman's amendment deprive that increased electoral roll of an additional seat at European elections?

David Heath: That is not the intention of the amendment, nor is it what it says. The figure of four for other countries and regions of the United Kingdom and three for Northern Ireland would be the floor. If the Electoral Commission determined that it would be right and proper for Northern Ireland to have an extra MEP, it would not be a problem. I hope that I have allayed the hon. Lady's fears in that respect.
	I am trying to achieve at least a broadly proportional system across the country. That would be disturbed if representation in the north-east were reduced to three MEPs, and that would be a retrograde step to which there are alternatives.

George Osborne: Surely the only way to achieve a more broadly proportional system—the hon. Gentleman's words—would be to distort the system so that the north-east would have fewer voters for every MEP. Is that the correct approach?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman must know that that happens already. Under the regional system, parity is achieved only in the broadest terms between the number of electors and the number of MEPs in a region. He is right that my amendment would mean a subsequent distortion for the rest of the country, because it would be marginally less represented than it would otherwise be, but it would be a matter of percentage points only, not whole numbers. It would not have a retrograde effect on the rest of the country compared with the effect on the north-east of having a distorted representation under the Government's proposals.
	There are other ways of addressing the problem. We could change the voting system across the whole country to extend to other regions the advantages of the single transferable vote system in Northern Ireland. The Government do not accept that proposition.

John Robertson: Thank goodness.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman says "Thank goodness", but if he talked to people in Northern Ireland he would find that they recommended their system because they find it to be appropriate to their needs. There is a strong argument for extending that system to other parts of the country.
	That would be one way of dealing with the anomaly. The other way would be to have flexibility in the boundaries of the English regions so that they could accommodate any changes by extending their areas. Again, the Government are not prepared to accept that. They want the boundaries of the English regions to be set in stone along the lines of the administrative boundaries that were set some time ago by a previous Government. I am not sure that they are right, but that is their view.
	Having cut off those alternative ways of dealing with the problem, the only way that is left is through the proposal that I make in amendment No. 1. It would not be a perfect solution. As the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) says, it can operate only with a small detrimental effect on the rest of the country in terms of its representation. I accept that, and I hope that he recognises that it is not the system that I would choose. Nevertheless, it would be one way of addressing an problem that further suggests that the closed list system is not the best way of administering a European parliamentary election.

Angus Robertson: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, specifically on amendments Nos. 2 to 7, which are tabled in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price).
	I sincerely hope that the House will have the opportunity to express its views, especially on amendment No. 3, which deals with an issue of great importance to people in Scotland and Wales—namely, that of fair representation in the European Union. Given earlier contributions, to which hon. Members will have listened with close interest, I appreciate that there are issues of concern for people elsewhere, including in certain regions of England. My point has particular relevance to the representation of Scotland and Wales, in that they are nations, not regions. European law recognises representation for member states, but not for nation states that do not have the status of member states. We should remember why it is important that parts of the European Union have a fair and adequate level of representation in the European Parliament. It is fashionable to say that the European Parliament has no powers, so what is the point? However, when one looks at the growing role of the European Parliament, irrespective of whether one is a fan, it is clearly important to retain a fair and equitable level of representation—not merely because of the electoral system, but because it is important that a minimum amount of representation be guaranteed for Northern Ireland, which is recognised in the Bill. However, it is not recognised with regard to Scotland or for Wales.
	It is clearly important to have a fair and equitable level of representation in the European Parliament, especially when one understands the importance of co-decision—that is, the role that the European Parliament plays in the legislative process, among other things, with regard to the free movement of workers, the establishment of the internal market, research, technological development, education, the environment, consumer protection and the like. Fair and equitable representation in the European Parliament is also important because of the role that it plays in budgets. The Parliament and the Council are the two arms of the budgetary authority, so they share the power of the purse just as they share legislative power. That is why it is important to have fair and equitable representation for Scotland, Wales and everywhere in the European Union.

John Robertson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman about the consistency of his party in trying to increase or maintain its number of MEPs, given that he rightly supports a reduction in the number of MPs in this House?

Angus Robertson: I am delighted to confirm that the policy of the Scottish National party is to repatriate all powers that normal countries have to Scotland and to have no Scottish representation in this House whatsoever, in the same way as there is no representation from the Irish Republic in this House.

John Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman is clearly talking about an independent Scotland, perhaps he could tell me how many seats he thinks that he would have for MEPs in the European Union.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That goes outside the terms of the amendment.

Angus Robertson: I am grateful for that clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the level of representation in the European Parliament is germane to the amendment. I will hold to your ruling on that.

Adam Price: As regards the other European institutions, Wales and Scotland do not have their own independent representation in terms of voting rights at the Council of Ministers and the European Council, nor do they have permanent representation as part of the UK, which is why representation in the European Parliament is so vital to our two countries.

Angus Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Scotland does not have a permanent representative in the Council of Ministers, does not nominate a Commissioner and does not take part directly in any of the key decision-making bodies of the European Union. That is why we need to ensure that we have fair and equitable representation. In response to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), who asked how many MEPs countries with populations of 5 million get, the list is in the annexe to the treaty of Nice. Those countries, which include Denmark, Slovakia and Finland, will be guaranteed 13 MEPs. Scotland currently has eight, and under the Bill will have its representation reduced to six.

Michael Connarty: To return to the consistency of the hon. Gentleman's argument, he is arguing that Scotland should be given representation because it has no direct representation in the Council of Ministers. Is it consistent for him to want the number of Members of this House to be reduced under the changes introduced in the Scotland Act 1998, given that we have a Secretary of State for Scotland doing the job for us in the Cabinet here?

Angus Robertson: I notice that you are shaking your head, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be delighted to debate on another occasion the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland, her French lessons and whatever else the hon. Gentleman may wish me to discuss, but I want to get back to the matter at hand—the amendment. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to hear a secondary, sedentary debate going on. We will please deal with this amendment, and this amendment only.

Angus Robertson: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I should like to conclude by discussing the powers of the European Parliament and why it is important, because of co-decision and its role in budget-making powers, that we have a fair and equitable level of representation. The supervisory powers of the European Parliament and the proposals supported by the UK Government on reforming the European Union show how important it is that one has the maximum amount of representation in the European Parliament. The Bill undermines that right for Scotland and Wales.
	Under plans that the French and German Governments propose and that the United Kingdom Government apparently support, the President of the Commission will be elected by Members of the European Parliament. As somebody who represents a fishing constituency, I stress that it will be inexplicable if Scottish Members of Parliament, from whatever party, vote to decrease Scotland's representation by 25 per cent. That is the effect of the Bill.

Peter Duncan: Perhaps hon. Members will vote for a fair and equitable reduction in representation throughout the United Kingdom because they accept the legitimacy of being represented as part of the UK. All regions and nations in the UK must accept the pain that will be inflicted to make way for the accession states.

Angus Robertson: I am delighted to hear the attempt at justification by the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan). As a Unionist, why does he accept the disproportionate reduction of representation in Scotland and Wales? I shall explain the disproportionate nature of the reduction and perhaps he will have the opportunity later to explain the reasons for his support for that.
	The problem is compounded because current representation for Scotland is second class in terms of numbers. Scotland has half the representation of other countries of 5 million people. Denmark, which also has a population of 5 million, has 16 members of the European Parliament whereas Scotland has only eight. In political terms, a Scottish voter is worth only half a Dane. That also applies to Wales, which currently has five Members of the European Parliament, whereas the Republic of Ireland, with a population below 4 million, has 15. In political terms, a Scot is worth only half someone from Denmark, and somebody from Wales has only a third of the political clout of a voter in the Republic of Ireland. That is not remotely justifiable.

Adam Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that the other stateless nations of the European Union are currently in a stronger position than Wales and Scotland? The number of Members of the European Parliament in Spain will be reduced, but the autonomous regions have the additional safeguard of co-decision on a united Spanish position at the Council of Ministers. Scotland and Wales do not have that.

Angus Robertson: I draw special attention to the regions in Germany and Austria. They play a strong role in the decision making of their federal governments. That does not happen in the UK. Such decision making is guarded by secrecy and confidentiality under the concordats between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. Different Governments and different parties in the House argue that the European Union should be more transparent, democratic, accountable and should offer greater subsidiarity—the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru support that—but they are happy to maintain secrecy and a lack of transparency for representation within the UK for the European Union.

George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman claims that under the Bill, a Scottish voter will be worth half a Danish voter. If we accepted the amendment, how would a Scottish voter stand in relation to an English voter?

Angus Robertson: Representation within England is for the people of England to decide. I represent a Scottish constituency and my mandate is therefore to ensure fair and equitable representation for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for the best possible representation for England and I wholeheartedly support that. However, I will not accede to a measure that will undermine Scotland's already second-rate status in the European Union and condemn it to third-rate representation.
	The Bill and the House of Commons explanatory note show how much representation Scotland and Wales will have in future. Page 14 of the research paper explains the position under the 72-seat scenario. That will be the UK's total number of seats after enlargement, which the SNP and Plaid Cymru support. We welcome other small and medium-sized independent countries in the European continent taking their rightful place in the European Union, with all the attendant rights and obligations. However, the research paper explains that Scotland's representation will be reduced from eight to six, and Wales's representation will decrease from five to four. One does not need an "O" grade in arithmetic to calculate that Scotland's reduction from eight to six Members of the European Parliament is a decrease of 25 per cent. The amendment would prevent that.
	Wales will experience a 20 per cent. drop in representation in the European Union. I challenge hon. Members in other parties to name one other part of the European Union whose representation will decrease by more. They cannot. Scotland is the nation that will experience the biggest single drop in representation under the changes.

Bill Tynan: The hon. Gentleman makes clear Scotland's position if it were separate, not as if it is part of the UK. The UK is represented in the European Parliament, and the Bill provides for equal numbers for the seats in the UK. It would apply to Scotland in the same way as the SNP's agreement on the boundary changes in Scotland would apply to a UK Parliament.

Angus Robertson: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not had time to examine the detailed figures that explain the changes. The reduction from eight to six seats is a reduction of 25 per cent. in representation for Scotland. Spain is next on the list, with a 22 per cent. reduction; Ireland follows with 20 per cent., and Wales also has a 20 per cent. reduction. We have to compare and contrast. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that if Scotland were independent it would have more representatives. Independence in Europe would be the best answer.
	Let us consider Luxembourg, which has only 448,000 inhabitants—the same population as Edinburgh, Scotland's capital. Luxembourg is set to have six Members of the European Parliament. Changes in the EU that involve member states also involve guarantees. Degressive proportionality means the smaller the member state, the greater the over-representation. The smallest are therefore looked after best. Scotland is by no means one of the smallest member states. However, a country with a population that is smaller than that of Edinburgh will have the same representation as Scotland.
	I therefore stress to the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) that I agree that independence in Europe would give Scotland the best deal. I am glad that a Labour Member of Parliament has pointed that out this evening. However, maintaining the second-class representation is much better than the third-class representation for which the Bill provides.

Bill Tynan: The hon. Gentleman might have misunderstood the question that I posed earlier. I did not ask whether he believed that an independent Scotland should have more MEPs. Rather, I asked whether he accepted that we are speaking tonight on a United Kingdom basis. On the basis of UK-wide representation in the European Parliament, these measures are being proposed according to equality throughout the UK, and not on the basis of Scotland as an independent state. That does not exist at present and I do not think that it ever will.

Angus Robertson: I do not want to labour this point. I think that everyone in the Chamber understands that, were Scotland an independent member of the European Union, it would have far more MEPs. I would far rather have that. That issue is not on the table this evening—I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. What we have instead is this amendment, which will guarantee that Scotland and Wales do not lose out more. Those Members who vote against it would therefore be voting in favour of Scotland having a disproportionate reduction in its level of representation. It would not only be disproportionate; it would be the biggest decrease in representation in the European Parliament anywhere in Europe.

Simon Thomas: Surely those in the House who advocate that the present UK constitution protects the role of small nations such as Wales and Scotland must face the fact that the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland have failed to protect the position of those countries within the United Kingdom—that is different from the situation in Northern Ireland—and that the situation in Europe as a whole protects the role of small nation states. We need to ensure that the legislation going through the House does the job that the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland should have done in the first place.

Angus Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. That argument has been propounded not only by his good self; it was also propounded by the Labour Government during the 1970s and 1980s, when they argued that it was vital that Scotland and Wales had a level of over-representation. That idea is to be found in the memoirs of the former Taoiseach of Ireland, Garrett Fitzgerald, who pointed out that UK Labour Government Ministers were arguing that Scotland and Wales needed better representation at the time. How things change! Twenty years later, Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster are arguing in favour of Scotland having a disproportionate reduction in representation in the European Parliament.

Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the justification for that over-representation in Scotland was the separate legislative programme there. That was the reason for it, and now that that arrangement has gone, we are seeking to remove that disproportionality. He must accept that what we are implementing today is a United Kingdom settlement—the number of MEPs for the United Kingdom—for a regime that is being implemented on the same basis throughout the whole of the UK. He may wish to have an argument about independence, but that is not what we are here for.

Angus Robertson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but it did not provide much more clarity in terms of the position of the Conservative party or the Scottish Conservative party on the matter. I referred earlier to an argument put forward by a UK Government about Scotland's representation in Europe, not about a devolved Scotland within the UK. I could argue all evening about why Scotland should have 13 Members of the European Parliament, which is what it would get if it were independent, but the amendment is not about that. It is about guaranteeing current levels of representation. That is second best, but it is better than third class.

Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman has expressed his interest in Scottish Conservative policy. I do not want to deviate from discussing the amendment before us, but, for the record, our only proposal is that the UK settlement be implemented on the same basis throughout the whole of the UK, and that only in that way can it be implemented on a fair and equitable basis throughout this United Kingdom—and long may it remain so.

Angus Robertson: I would be delighted to forward the figures to the hon. Gentleman, because he clearly has not seen them. The reduction in the level of representation throughout the UK is neither fair nor equitable. Scotland's reduction is 25 per cent. The reduction of representation in England is less than that. Compared with other parts of Europe, Scotland's representation is miles worse. That is unacceptable, and I would have thought that someone representing a part of Scotland that is suffering because Scotland's case is not being argued effectively in the European Union would have been better off making the case to Ministers that they should not undermine Scotland's representation in Europe.

Adam Price: Is not the basis for our argument that Wales and Scotland are nations within the UK and, as such, enjoy a unique constitutional status in all the structures of UK governance? If Members of other parties do not join us in the Lobby tonight, will it not be another case of the big UK parties failing to stand up for the small UK countries?

Angus Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Andrew Rosindell: rose—

Angus Robertson: I shall give way one last time before I finish, and it will be to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), but I would like to get back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) has just made with such great force. Curiously, his argument is supported by the Minister, who said in the last debate on the Bill on the Floor of the House that the reason the Bill had been drafted in this way was that
	"there are different legislative arrangements in Northern Ireland and Scotland for elections and judicial matters."
	The Government recognise the need for a differentiated approach for the different nations within the United Kingdom. That is why Northern Ireland's position has been guaranteed to remain at three seats, yet that right to fair and equitable representation has not been extended to Scotland and Wales.
	I shall be interested to see how the Liberal Democrats will vote on this matter. The Member who leads for them on this, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, has made some very sensible suggestions today. In the previous debate, he said that the EU
	"has listened to the pleadings of the small countries, which believe that there is an irredeemable minimum number of representatives that they should have so that they are properly represented. That touches on what the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said when he compared Scotland with other small nations that are member states. We need to recognise the imbalance." —[Official Report, 10 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 180, 197.]
	I shall be interested to see how Scottish and Welsh Liberal Democrat Members of the Westminster Parliament vote tonight. They have the chance to join SNP and Plaid Cymru colleagues to guarantee at least the current level of representation. We have said that that level is inadequate, but at least it is better than the third-class representation to which the Bill will demote Scotland. Unfortunately, there are no Scottish Liberal Democrats here this evening, but I note that the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats is present. I do not know whether he is in favour of Wales's representation in the European Parliament being reduced by 20 per cent., but we shall find out in the Lobby later on, when I hope that the amendment will be voted on so that MPs from all parties will be able to make their views known.

Andrew Rosindell: Scotland is, of course, a great nation, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not a nation state? If the logic of his argument were to be applied across the whole of Europe, how large would the European Parliament become? Bavaria, Catalonia and a whole range of regions and countries within nations would, of course, expect greater representation. Where would it end?

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is a doughty campaigner for the rights of self-determination for the people of Gibraltar. I would be the last person to tell anyone anywhere in Europe where they should set the boundaries for their self-determination. That is up to people elsewhere to decide. It is up to the people of Gibraltar to decide how they should be represented, and it is up to people throughout the rest of Europe to decide how they would like to be represented. I would like to ensure that Scotland's representation is not third class, and that it is not demoted by 25 per cent. I look forward to hon. Members being given the chance to vote on this important issue. I mentioned the presence of the Welsh Liberal Democrat Member, so I shall give way to him.

Lembit �pik: I am honoured to have been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, who has made the cogent case that I would expect from a member of a party that clearly wishes to separate itself from the rest of the United Kingdom. An earlier intervention implied that members of Plaid Cymru have the same wish. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, however, that there are different views? Is there not a case for suggesting that those who do not want separation may have a collective responsibility to consider the proportionality that we are discussing and, perhaps, the necessary cost of achieving it?

Angus Robertson: I must confess that I did not understand that. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he wants Wales's representation to be reduced by 20 per cent., or that he is against the idea?

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman must try to see outside the box. His is not the only point of view in the Chamber.
	Some of us are passionate supporters of the interests of Wales in the European environmentbut in the context of not separating ourselves from the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to take the position that he takes, but does he not accept that taking a different position does not necessarily involve betraying the nation of Wales?

Angus Robertson: Much as I would like the amendment to normalise the representation of Scotland and Wales in Europe as normal member states, the amendment will not achieve that. What it will do is guarantee the current level of representation. This is a very easy question: do Members from Scotland and Wales support the current level of representation, or do they not?
	Curiously, one argument has not been presented on either side of the Housethe argument that it might be in the interests of the Scottish National party or Plaid Cymru for the levels to remain as they are for narrow party-political purposes. [Interruption.] I see a lot of head-shaking, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hamilton, South for supporting my proposition from a sedentary position. If the level of Scottish representation in the European Parliament is reduced from eight to six, the first MEP to go off the list will be from the Labour party and the second will be a Liberal Democrat. Should that reduction continue, the next will be a Conservative.

John Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Angus Robertson: No. I want to finish my speech.
	What the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru propose will not guarantee Scotland and Wales the normal, fair status of member states. It is clear that we cannot resolve the issue this evening. That means, indisputably, that Scotland and Wales will be in an inferior position in terms of MEP numbers. What the House must decide this evening is whether to accept the current level of representation, which our amendment would guarantee, or whether to vote for a 25 per cent. reduction in Scottish representation. I now give the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) the opportunity to intervene, and tell the House that Scotland will not experience a 25 per cent. reduction in its representation.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is viewing the issue solely from his nationalist standpoint, rather than from a UK-wide standpoint. He has used his platform entirely to promote nationalist politics. This has nothing to do with representation in Europe; it is just party politics.

Angus Robertson: Having given way so many times to so many Members on both sides of the House, I thought I was being fair.

Colin Challen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Angus Robertson: I will deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland first, but then I will give way toI thinkthe only Member to whom I have not given way already.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland had the opportunity to deny that Scotland's representation would fall by 25 per cent. Clause 2(4)(b) makes that clear, stating that the Electoral Commission must ensure that
	the ratio of electors to MEPs is as nearly as possible the same as in each electoral region.
	That means a uniform reduction in membership from every UK regionfrom eight to six, according to the House of Commons Library. I do not know about the hon. Gentleman's mathematical abilities, but I can tell him that a reduction from eight to six is a reduction of 25 per cent. When he had the opportunity to deny that, he failed to do so. The fact is that if Members from Scotland, Wales and hopefully elsewhere do not back the amendment, Scotland's representation will fall by 25 per cent. and that of Wales by 20 per cent.

Colin Challen: Does the hon. Gentleman apply his argument about proportionality to all areas? It seems to me that, according to his logic, the Barnett formula would be eradicated. It is not a question of third-class representation; it is a question of the quality of the representation. In the past Scotland's representation in the UK has been of great qualitydelivering, for instance, the Barnett formula.

Angus Robertson: I do not think that the Chair would look too kindly on us if we moved the debate to the subject of the Barnett formula, although I would be delighted to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman some other time.
	The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to deal with a point that was not denied by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Annieslandthat Scotland's representation is set to decline by 25 per cent., and that of Wales by 20 per cent. That is not fair or equitable. I urge Members on both sides of the House to vote for fair and equitable representation for Scotland and Wales, and I appeal to Members throughout England to make the strongest case that they can for the areas they represent. That is up to them, however. Members of the SNP and Plaid Cymru have a mandate to represent the best interests of the people of Scotland and Wales, and we will take every opportunity to do so rather than accepting a further reduction of our representation in the European Union.

Yvette Cooper: I cannot quite believe that that speech has finished.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised some points that he had raised in Committee. He wanted to raise the minimum threshold for representation in any region except Northern Ireland to four. The Bill's current threshold is three in all regions. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve and I have some sympathy with what he said, but I disagree with him ultimately because I think it important for all regions to be treated in the same way.

Annabelle Ewing: Does the Minister accept that Scotland and Wales are nations, not regions?

Yvette Cooper: I know that the hon. Lady and her party are keen to argue that Scotland and Wales should be treated differently, and should become independent nation states. I disagree. I think it important to treat every region in the UK in the same way.

Michael Weir: Will the Minister give way?

Yvette Cooper: I will, on condition that the hon. Gentleman makes a different point.

Michael Weir: Will the Minister answer the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson)? Does she accept that Scotland's representation will be cut by 25 per cent. and Wales's by 20 per cent?

Yvette Cooper: The Electoral Commission has not set out its recommendation as to what the numbers should be. Will the hon. Gentleman let me first respond to the points that were made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome before I move on to the points that were made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson)?
	It would be inappropriate to single out Northern Ireland in the Bill so that it received less representation than any other region. I have looked further into the points that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made about the way in which the votes are counted in Northern Ireland. I do not think that that is sufficient to justify setting a threshold in Northern Ireland that is different from that in other regions. Furthermore, as I set out in Committee, to do so would effectively mean over-representation and under-representation in other regions, which could not be justified.
	To deal with whether Scotland and Wales should be uniquely qualified to receive more representation than any English region, that is simply unjustifiable. The nationalist parties are arguing that the votes of people who live in Edinburgh should count for more in the UK's representation in the European Parliament than the votes of people who live in Leeds. As a Yorkshire MP, I do not see how that is remotely justifiable in any way.

Angus Robertson: Will not the Minister confirm that there is an inconsistency in her argument, because the Bill enshrines a specific status for Northern Ireland? Why is it that Northern Ireland should have a specific status, which I think is fair and equitable, and Scotland and Wales, the other nations within the UK, should not have that same right?

Yvette Cooper: The Bill provides for the minimum threshold for representation in any region to be set at the level of three. That is the right thing to do. Hon. Members are arguing that the votes of those who live in Scotland or Wales should count for more than the votes of those who live in England. I understand that they want independent nation states. I disagree with them on that. I strongly believe that that would not be in the interests of the people of Scotland, Wales, the UK or Europe. If hon. Members accept that, for the purposes of this amendment, they vote as part of the United Kingdom, they have no justification for arguing that the votes of people who live in Cardiff should count for more than those of people who live in Birmingham.

Lembit �pik: As a matter of record, does the Minister accept that there are particular circumstances in Northern Ireland, quite closely related to the troubles and divisions within the community, that mean that, for practical reasons, it probably is necessary to have a minimum of three MEPs there?

Yvette Cooper: I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, but it is probably right to have a minimum of three MEPs in any region; it is difficult to see how a result could be properly proportionate if the number fell below three in any region.
	The nationalist parties need to recognise another issue. They are trying to set this up as an opportunist issuethem versus the rest of England, them versus the rest of the United Kingdom. That is not what this is about. They are arguing to maintain the status quo: to maintain the number of MEPs that they have. A number of states are acceding to the European Union. Everyone has argued across Europe that it is important that they should be given representation in the European Parliament; everyone else accepts that. Everyone accepts that, overall, in order to achieve that, and so that we do not have a massive explosion in the size of European Parliament, all member states should see a reduction in their MEPs as a resultexcept Scottish National Members, who believe that Scotland should have special treatment within the United Kingdom.

Annabelle Ewing: Does the Minister feel that it is fair that Scotland and Wales should suffer a disproportionate reduction? That has been the crux of the debate.

Yvette Cooper: It is important that the distribution should be fair across the United Kingdom. That is why we have asked the Electoral Commission to come up with a recommendation as to what the distribution should be. The Bill provides for the commission to do that. If hon. Members think that the commission needs to take particular things into account, they should talk to the commission. The commission will make the recommendation about what the fair distribution should be, but the nationalist parties are not arguing for a fair distribution. They are not arguing for the people of Scotland and Wales to be treated fairly alongside everyone else. They are arguing for their votes to count for more. That is unacceptable when we consider people living in the UK as a whole. It is right that people should be fairly represented in the European Parliament. This Bill provides for that fair representation. Their amendments do not.

David Heath: With the leave of the House, we have certainly had a lively debate on this group of amendments. I listened with care to what the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said over rather a long time in support of his amendments. Seductive though his arguments may be to a casual listener, they depend on one factor only: his interpretation of Scotland and Wales as being member states. They are not member states. The United Kingdom is the member state, of which the nations of Scotland and Wales are a part.

Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on a point of clarification?

David Heath: There is no such thing as a point of clarification in this place. We are not in a debating chamber in a school debate. The hon. Gentleman's position is perfectly proper as the position to be adopted by a nationalist party that wants Scotland to be separate from the United Kingdom. I accept that. I am a little surprised that it is entered into by Plaid Cymru Members. I thought that their position had changed over recent years and that they did not wish to secede from the United Kingdom, but that is a proper position. What they cannot possibly argue is that the words in clause 2(4)(b),
	the ratio of electors to MEPs is as nearly as possible the same in each electoral region
	are unfair to any part of the UK in themselves. The hon. Gentleman is proposing to give an unfair advantage to Scotland and Wales at the expense of the regions of England. As a Somerset MP, I am unable to accept that proposition.

Several hon. Members: rose

David Heath: We have had untold interventions and it is time

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: All right. Once.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great regard, has missed the point with regard to what the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) was saying. The whole point at issue is that if there is to be a reduction, it should be across the board and fair. The proposed reduction is not going to be across the board and fair, according to the research from the House of Commons Library. It has nothing to do with nation states. It is to do with the number of people in a population. We are saying that we should maintain that representation pro tem, whatever the future of those states.

David Heath: I reciprocate in my regard for the hon. Gentleman. We have worked together over a number of years, but he is wrong. It is not possible to interpret the phrase that I read out from the Bill as being unfair to any part of the United Kingdom, other than in the sense that, were Wales and Scotland to be separate member states, they would be treated differently. That is a difference that we shall have to accept, but I ask him to look at the internal logic of his argument because it has some deficiencies.

Lembit �pik: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Heath: Well, all right.

Lembit �pik: It does not matter that much.

David Heath: Go on.

Lembit �pik: I apologise for, rather ironically, annoying my hon. Friend. I wonder whether he, having listened to the interventions from the nationalists, agrees with me about the reality of the debate about their amendments. If one believes in independence for Wales and for Scotland, it is appropriate to change to higher representation for those countries. However, if one believes, as I do, that we are part of the United Kingdom, it is necessary to have fair and equitable distribution. Otherwise, the north-east and the south-west of England could equally argue that, for economic and other reasons, they, too, are special cases for greater representation.

David Heath: If my hon. Friend is going to tender his apologies ironically, I shall accept them quizzically. However, I believe that his point is correct.
	On amendment No. 1, I think that the hon. Lady almost accepted the logic of my argument. She agreed that it bears examination, so she has some sympathy with it, but she then went so far as to say that we could not go below the threshold of three, because that would destroy proportionality. I agree, but going below the threshold of four also destroys proportionality, given this ridiculous closed-list system and the d'Hondt arithmetic progression, which the previous Home Secretary chose to adopt for European elections. That is why, to pursue the interests of proportionality and proper representation across the United Kingdom, I must press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 424.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: No.3, in page 2, line 29, at end insert
	'(aa) Scotland is allocated at least eight MEPs;
	(ab) Wales is allocated at least five MEPs; and'.[Mr. Angus Robertson.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 453.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3
	  
	Section 2: Meaning Of Elector

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 10, at end insert
	'( ) persons who are registered but have not attained the age of 18 are to be counted as electors;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 20.

Yvette Cooper: I shall be brief on these amendments. The Electoral Commission pointed out to us that the Bill was ambiguous about whether people who were registered but had not yet attained the age of 1816 and 17-year-olds who were on the registershould be counted as electors for the purposes of its work on the redistribution of MEPs. The amendments are intended to clarify the position. The attainers, as the electoral administrators call them, should be included on the register with their dates of birth. So that the Electoral Commission does not have to go through the electoral register and exclude or include people according to their dates of birth, the amendment includes all of them for the purposes of the commission's calculation. It will therefore simplify the commission's work. I hope that the House will agree that it is a relatively straightforward amendment that should be accepted.

Lady Hermon: The Minister will be aware that, under the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, new identifiers were introduced last year, so that there is no automatic registration of those aged 16, 17 or 18. They have to complete a registration form. Will the Minister ensure that negotiations take place with her counterparts in the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that that provision is brought to their attention?

Yvette Cooper: I will ensure that there is no discrepancy and that all in Northern Ireland are included in the provision.

William Cash: I have only one point to make. Is the Minister satisfied that the word registered means lawfully registered in this context? Does the word lawfully need to be included, because it is theoretically possible for a person to be registered but not lawfully so?

Yvette Cooper: The amendment will allow the Electoral Commission to make its calculation. It is unlikely to be able to distinguish between those who are lawfully registered and those who are not. The hon. Gentleman is concerned that a category of people are not lawfully registered and suggesting that they should be excluded. If the Electoral Commission discovers that people are unlawfully registered, it will clearly remove them from the register. It could become a vicious circle, so the amendment will ensure that the commission can make a very simple calculation. The amendment should not be controversial or difficult.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4
	  
	Orders Implementing Changes In The Number Of United Kingdom Meps

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'supplementary, incidental'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 10.
	Amendment No. 23, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'any Act)' and insert
	'such enactments only as are germane to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 and this Act)'.
	Government amendments Nos. 11 to 16.
	Amendment No. 37, in clause 17, page 9, line 26, leave out from 'regulations' to end of line 29 and add
	'may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
	Government amendments Nos. 17 to 19.

Yvette Cooper: We have only a few minutes available, but this large group of amendments is made up mostly of technical Government amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 9 and 18 will remove the power to make supplementary and incidental amendments that appears in clause 4(3). We considered the points that were made in Committee about limiting the scope of the powers to those that were precisely needed. All the other Government amendments clarify and refine the powers to make subordinate legislation, so that it is clear what we can and cannot do. In particular, they will enable the electoral process to work satisfactorily in Gibraltar.
	Government amendment No. 11 restricts the power in clause 11(6) so that it is clear that it cannot override any provisions on the face of Bill. In Committee, we discussed the scope of that subsection to ensure that it was restricted by what was on the face of the Bill. It is not restricted by what is in other regulations.
	Amendment No. 23 is hard to accept because it uses difficult language such as the world germane. I do not know what the legal interpretation of germane would be, so the amendment would create a legal difficulty.
	Amendment No. 37 would require all subordinate legislation to be made only by affirmative resolution procedures. We discussed extensively in Committee the fact that some matters are suitable for the negative resolution procedure and that others are suitable for the affirmative resolution procedure. Clearly we will consider the views of the Committee in the Lords, but we have set out our views on the appropriateness of the way in which the resolutions should be treated, and that is based on how electoral law tends to be treated under the negative and affirmative resolution procedures.
	The Government amendments are relatively technical. I hope that the House will agree to them.
	Amendment agreed to.
	It being Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Orders [29 October and 10 December], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.
	Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I thank those hon. Members who contributed to the debate and those who participated in Committee. We have had an in-depth and generally constructive debate on the issues included in this important Bill, which allows us both to meet our treaty agreements to enable additional states to participate fully in European Union democracy and to give Gibraltar a voice in European elections.
	Part 1 enables the UK to move a step closer to fulfilling our obligations under the treaty of Nice as part of the preparations for enlargement of the European Union. As other states join the EU, they clearly need fair representation in its institutions, and that includes the European Parliament. It is right that they should have fair representation there and the treaty of Nice sets out provisions to enable that to happen. To ensure that the European Parliament does not simply inexorably increase in size, a mechanism was agreed in the treaty of Nice by which the number of MEPs across all European countries can be reduced. Parliament ratified the treaty last year and the Bill implements the obligations that it places on us. The Bill establishes the mechanism by which the number of UK MEPs can be altered to allow space in the European Parliament for the new accession states.
	It is right that the redistribution should be based, as far as possible, on equality of representation and a minimum threshold of three MEPs per region. It is right, too, that the Electoral Commission should be the appropriate body to carry out the necessary calculations and make recommendations on redistribution. It is essential that we start work on that as soon as possible so that we can implement the first tranche of changes in time for the 2004 European Parliament elections. The European Commission has considerable work to do before it makes its recommendation on the distribution of MEPs. That will be included in an order that will be placed before the House under the affirmative resolution procedure and pass through the House then.
	Part 2 enables the people of Gibraltar to vote in European parliamentary elections as of 2004. That means that their interests will be directly represented in the European Parliament for the first time. We have discussed extensively the need to consult the Government of Gibraltar on the Bill's details. As I set out today and in Committee, we are still in discussion with them and intend to table amendments in another place to give effect to some of the issues that they have raised, although the discussions have been going on for a considerable time. As hon. Members will be aware, officials had a meeting with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and his colleagues before Christmas to discuss such matters. We have recently received further points from the Government of Gibraltar, which I have shared with hon. Members who served on Committee. We are looking at the matter in more detail with parliamentary counsel and hope to table further amendments.
	Secondary legislation is also required to put into practice the more detailed amendments to electoral law. Important issues about the franchise were dealt with in the Bill, and more detailed amendments on donations to political parties and so on will be dealt with in regulations under the Bill. It is important that powers in part 2 are restricted to those that give the people of Gibraltar representation in the European Parliament and ensure that the combined region is established under the recommendation of the Electoral Commission. We should set that in train as rapidly as possible to meet the tight time scale imposed by the 2004 elections.
	We have had extensive debates about bits and pieces of issues surrounding the Bill. I hope that its fundamental principles are supported by Members on both sides of the House and members of all political parties, as they deal with enlargement of the European Union, ensuring that new member states get fair representation in the European Parliament, fairness of representation and democracy, and the enfranchisement of the people of Gibraltar by giving them the vote in the European Parliament. I hope that Members on both sides will sign up to those principles, so that we can all support Third Reading.

David Heath: We have made it clear from the outset that we support the Bill for two reasons. First, we believe passionately in the enlargement of the European Union. Appropriate administrative structures, including the restructuring of the European Parliament in line with the protocols of the treaty of Nice, must be in place if that is to happen. Secondly, we have believed passionately for a long time that Gibraltar should be enfranchised. The Government were extraordinarily remiss in not dealing with the outcome of the Denise Matthews case much earlier in parliamentary proceedings. They dragged their feet far too long about providing representation for the people of Gibraltar in the European Parliament. At last, that is being rectified.
	We explored our differences with the Government extensively in CommitteeI congratulate all Members who participate in Committee and on Reportand especially their determination to exceed what is required to make the necessary changes to implement the treaty of Nice or the enfranchisement of Gibraltar. Their intention may not have been malign, but it throws up questions about the right of hon. Members to a locus in future proceedings, the extensive powers granted to the Lord Chancelloran unelected member of the Governmentand other matters that were not necessary to achieve the desired outcome.
	I have already raised some of those problems, and the Minister has promised to look at them, for which I am grateful. On others, she has suggested that she may be willing to table amendments in another place; again, we look forward to that. It is regrettable that insufficient thought was given earlier to such amendments, and that the Commonsthe elected Housetherefore lacked an opportunity to debate them properly. However, I look forward to their being introduced in another place.
	There is a glaring lacuna in the Bill in the lack of arrangements to consult the people of Gibraltar via the House of Assembly and the political parties there. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has rightly spoken several times about the neocolonial aspects of the Bill. There is an arrogant disregard for the people of Gibraltar in many ways in the terms of the Bill as drafted. I do not accuse the hon. Lady of that, but that is the only way in which the Bill can be read, and assuredly that is the way in which it will be read in Gibraltar. To assume that the Consolidated Fund of Gibraltar can be drawn upon by edict of the Lord Chancellor setting out an order in Westminster is arrogant and should not be acceptable to this Government or any other.
	There are some important issues to be discussed in the other place. I hope that we have pointed the way through the views that we have expressed during the passage of the Bill, and likewise the hon. Member for Stone, with whom I agree more often than is convenient for him or me to admit to our parties. I hope that we have gone some way to illuminating some of the Bill's deficiencies while maintaining our assertion that it is right that the changes be put into law. I hope that the Bill will receive fair passage in another place and, equally, that it will be amended to take account of the constitutional issues that we have properly raised.

Andrew MacKinlay: I welcome the Bill, first, because I feel moved by each increment in our legislation to facilitate the enlargement of the European Union. When I made my maiden speech in the House 10 years ago, I spoke about the need for Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and other states of central Europe to be brought into the European family through NATO and EU membership. A number of hon. Members spoke about that, but many thought that it was a long way off, and some distinguished peopleeven members of the present Governmentthought it was too hasty and too ambitious, and might offend the Russian Federation and others. I welcome the fact that, by passing the Bill tonight, we are in part facilitating the wonderful enlargement that will take place in a year and a half.
	Secondly, I welcome the fact that the redistribution of seats for the European Parliament bears some relation to parity of treatment throughout the United Kingdom. One of the factors that disfigure our democracy is that the electoral arrangements for Westminster, as distinct from the European parliamentary arrangements that we are putting in place tonight, result in some very large geographical constituencies with very small electorates. A hallmark of a parliamentary democracy is that votes count equally. Many other jurisdictions, both in the European Union and around the world, ensure that elected legislators represent the same number of electors. To some extent, the Bill brings us closer to that. I welcome that, and wish that we could replicate it in elections to this place. At present, our democracy is diminished by the fact that we have some very small electorates and some big ones, and disparity between the nations of the United Kingdom.
	Thirdly, the European Parliament is very large and will become larger to take account of the increased membership of the EU. Member states should ensure that MEPs keep to the competency of the EU. Over the years since 1979, when direct elections to the European Parliament began, MEPs on all sides have trespassed on matters that are not within the competency of their Parliament. They have often related to matters that are within the jurisdiction of this place.
	When they are discussing issues with their opposite numbers, the Government should try to ensure that there is some discipline with regard to what is their business and what is ours. There should be a clear division.
	My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the fact that part 2 provides for the enfranchisement of the people of Gibraltar in European elections. She kept my attention when she said that she hoped that all hon. Members would support it. For 10 years, I have been going on about this matter, so I take some satisfaction tonight from what has been done. I have not concluded many things in my decade here, but this is perhaps the end of a chapter.
	Soon after Labour came to office I asked my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary, now Foreign Secretary, whether the Government would enfranchise the people of Gibraltar for European elections. His answer was that it could not and would not be done. The implication, both by him at that time and subsequently in the Foreign Affairs Committee, when we asked members of the Government when they would do it, was not only that it could not and would not be done, but that I was stupid even to suggest it.
	There are lessons to be learned about this place and the role of Governmentof people sitting on the Treasury Bench. I asked my right hon. Friend in a similar epoch whether he would introduce legislation to allow people ordained in the Roman Catholic ministry to stand for Parliament. His reply, which appeared in Hansard, was Certainly not. But when the Labour party chose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make various points, but we are now talking about what is in the Bill.

Andrew MacKinlay: If I may have just five seconds to conclude on this point, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is that Ministers do not listen to hon. Members. If they did, they could avoid some of the embarrassment of introducing legislation screaming and kicking.

Lady Hermon: May I say, in fairness to the hon. Gentleman's Government, that one of the best things they did was to bring home the European convention on human rights and make it part and parcel of our domestic law. The people of Gibraltar have been enfranchised in the European Parliament elections by dint of the fact that article 3 of the convention's first protocol guarantees people the choice of legislaturethe European Parliament. Therefore, that is a good thing for the hon. Gentleman to commend his Government upon.

Andrew MacKinlay: I should hate anybody who might be hanging on my words to assume that I have anything other than great enthusiasm for sustaining this Labour Government. They have delivered a great deal. The hon. Lady is correct: in particular, they have delivered on this legislation. An elector of Gibraltar took the British GovernmentI am ashamed to say that it was the Labour Governmentscreaming and kicking through the courts. All through that period there were people in the Box and the Home Office who were counselling

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to people who are not within the Chamber.

Andrew MacKinlay: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Certainly, the matter was within the competence of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, not of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. My right hon. Friend was giving advice and counsel that it could not be done. That was coupled with political considerations advanced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as arguments for urging that it must not be done.
	I deeply regret the fact that the British Government had to introduce the Bill because the courts ordered them to do so, rather than their saying, It is a matter of rights and of enfranchising people. That is a great tragedy.
	I do not know whether the electorate, or the Almighty, will allow me to stay here for another decade, but I am calling now for us to have a Member of Parliament for Gibraltar. I shall be told, It can't be done. Don't be so silly, but some things are irresistible; some things come about. Eventually, the Electoral Commission and the consultative process will put Gibraltar in one of the English or Welsh regions. Political parties and individual candidates will then rewrite history. They will say that there was never a day when they were not championing the case for the enfranchisement of the people of Gibraltar. Whether they come from the left, the right or the centre, whether they are Labour, Conservative or Liberal and whichever region they represent, I hope that they will be able to specify when they said that they believed that the people of Gibraltar should be enfranchised. I also hope that the people of Gibraltar will ask them where they stand on extending the people's franchise to their Parliament, which is this Parliament. That will be the big test.
	I hope that the Minister will reflect during her career, which I hope will be very extensive and reach Cabinet level, that there are occasions when those on the Treasury Bench would be much more prudent to listen to Members of Parliament and concede the justified claimsthey are justified by any democratic norms or teststhat those who are disfranchised should be enfranchised. If they did so, this place would be much more relevant and we would have much more concord in Parliament and in our party.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Of course, some of us would prefer it if he and the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) reached the Cabinet. None the less, does he agree that it is insulting to the people of Gibraltar that the name of the region of which it is to be a part will not include its name? Does he agree that it should be included and that Gibraltar should be recognised in terms not only of votes, but of the name of the constituency in which it will be represented?

Andrew MacKinlay: I will not use the term insulting, but I despair of the arrogance of the people who draft such legislation. Quite apart from courtesy, logic tells us that the title should include Gibraltar's name. Why are people so stubborn? I hope that the situation will be altered in another place. We can be sure that all the candidatesLabour, Conservative, Liberal and otherswill be saying, I think that it is outrageous; Parliament should have made the change. However, apart from the hon. Members who are now exercised about the matter, not many people are clamouring for such change. Such matters represent the way in which history can be rewritten. That is why I get so frustrated when a Labour Government do not reflect or do what is obvious and ultimately inevitable. They will come to make such a change and they will say that it was their idea all along.
	There are many lessons to be learned, but I rejoice in the fact that I have got two wins tonight. The first is the extension of the European Union to include these wonderful countries that were denied freedom and democracy for so long. For some of them, entry into the European Union will be the conclusion of world war two and will represent the crossing of the final frontier. Secondly, we have had to acknowledge our rights and obligations in respect of the people of Gibraltar, but we need to do more.

Lindsay Hoyle: We all welcome the enfranchisement of the people of Gibraltar and the fact that they have been allowed the vote, which they should have had by right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) said, it is a tragedy that we had to go to the European Court of Human Rights to ensure that they got it. However, that need has now been recognised and we have rectified the situation, so some good is coming out of what is happening. We should be proud of the fact that this House has recognised the rights of the people of Gibraltar.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly said that we should look to the Minister to pass on to her friends and colleagues in the Government the feeling that now we have given the people of Gibraltar the vote for Europe we should give them the vote for Westminster. We must take that on board.
	There are a couple of other issues on which I look to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, I hope that she will say to her colleagues in another place that we should reduce the right of the Governor in giving his views, and that that right should be passed on to the Assembly in Gibraltar so that we can hear the views of all its political parties. I am sure that she will pass that on.
	Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, the constituency title, whether it is north-west, south-west, Wales or Northern Ireland, should be a proper statement of the geographical area that it includes. [Interruption.] Somebody asks me whether I would include Chorley in the north-west. Although I recognise that Chorley should come first, I also recognise that we are in the north-west, so its inclusion makes sense in terms of that geographical area. However, I could not say that Gibraltar was in the north-west, so it is common sense that the title should inform us of the geographical area that will be enfranchised as part of the European constituency in question. Obviously, if it related to the south-west it would read, south-western Gibraltar. I hope that the Minister will speak to her colleagues in another place and persuade them to ensure that that is encompassed in the title, because that would right some of the wrongs. Let us not lose sight of the importance of direct elections from Gibraltar to this House in Westminster.

William Cash: I apologise again for the sound of my voice, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am afraid that there is nothing much I can do about it. I hope that it will recover now that we have reached the end of the Bill's proceedings in this House.
	The Bill was thoroughly and extensively considered in Committee and we have had an interesting debate this afternoon. Conservative Members support the main principles that lie behind the Bill, which is why we did not vote against it on Second Reading. We particularly support the entitlement of Gibraltarians to vote in European elections: it is all about democracy.
	It is not to the Government's credit, however, that they were pushed and shoved by the Denise Matthews case into agreeing that they would have to legislate. In fact, agreeing is the wrong wordthey were driven into it. That represents one of the less agreeable aspects of the drafting of the Bill and the relative lack of consultation that accompanied ithence the amendments that we, and the Liberal Democrats, have tabled. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I found during the Committee's proceedings that we had achieved a certain symmetry, which was not based in any way on advance discussions, but occurred spontaneously on the basis that we share a clear understanding of the thresholds of acceptability that, in many respects, has not been matched by the Government.
	The prime question in relation to part 1 concerns the extravagant powers that are thereby taken, which I have covered in detail. They are fundamentally unconstitutional, excessive, unclear and inappropriate. Important as the Bill may be, it does not compare with some of the other European Bills with which I have been associated. That raises an important issue of principle. I still do not understand why the Minister could not accept my earlier amendment. She did not explain that. No doubt, if it is thought fit, the matter can be pursued in another place.
	The question of Gibraltar is immensely important. I pay tribute to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Mr. Caruana, as would all hon. Members, with the possible exception of some Ministers. He has shown tenacity and punched above his weightnot in a literal sense. It is difficult to conduct such a constitutional battle with Spain breathing down one's neck and the prospectI do not want to sound cynicalthat given the Prime Minister's extremely close relationship with Mr. Aznar, especially in relation to Iraq, he may find it at least tempting to consider what will happen further down the line when the European constitution goes through. I am deeply worried that the redrawing of boundaries and the boundless territorial ambitions of the European Union could unravel some parts of the Bill.
	I have always supported enlargement, but there is a world of difference between that and plunging people into an acquis communautaire, which has inherent grave economic and democratic problems. There is a vast democratic deficit in the European Union, and the Bill's construction demonstrates that. Some accession states may regret the fact that they joined under terms that they were blackmailed into accepting. The lite do not believe that that is true, but I think that the people do. If they do not now, they will discover it in due course.
	Notwithstanding all that, we have an obligation to facilitate the rule of law. We therefore have no option. However, I say in parenthesis that I hope that the whole European Union will be renegotiated. I oppose the constitution as a matter of principle, unlike the Government, who support it.
	The Government have adopted a colonialist, imperialistic attitude to the Bill, especially to part 2, which applies to Gibraltar. For an unelected Lord Chancellor to take such a line on part 1 smacks of the divine right of kings.
	We have an extraordinary conjunction of circumstances. We are keen for the people of Gibraltar to be enfranchised and we will therefore not oppose Third Reading. We have made some severe criticisms, but I hope that we have also been constructive. I thank all members of the Committee and those who participated in today's debate.

Yvette Cooper: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. I hope that the tone of Third Reading reflects the broad support for the fundamental principles of the Bill. I believe that all hon. Members should support the accession of states to the European Union, their fair representation in the European Parliament and enfranchising the people of Gibraltar.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) raised a series of important issues about the constitutional status of Gibraltar. I pay tribute to their work and their arguments in support of enfranchising the people of Gibraltar in the European parliamentary elections. I appreciate that both my hon. Friends feel passionately about that; they have argued for it for many years. I am glad of their support in introducing the Bill.
	My hon. Friends raised several wider issues about Gibraltar's constitutional status that are not within the Bill's scope and purpose. They acknowledged that and I shall therefore resist the temptation to get involved in the broader constitutional debate about Gibraltar's status. They appreciate that it is a complex matter that has much history attached to it.
	The hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Stone (Mr. Cash) expressed anxieties about the nature of some of the powers in the Bill. They overstated the case for the sake of making political points. They have ignored many of the safeguards that we have set out in some detail, not only in today's debate but in Committee. We have always made it clear that various things needed to be done through secondary legislation, partly because there are details of electoral lawmuch of it already contained in secondary legislationthat need to be amended.

Lindsay Hoyle: Allowing for what has been said so far, what would happen under the Bill if another overseas territory were to suggest that it, too, wished to be enfranchised with the European vote? How would its case be considered? What would happen to its application?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend raises an important point, but every case is clearly different, and has different issues attached to it. As I understand it, the judgment in the case of Matthews v. the United Kingdom found that the European Parliament had the characteristics of a legislature for the purposes of Gibraltar. For that reason, the European convention on human rights applied, with regard to the right to free and fair elections. It is important, however, to define what the relevant legislature is, for the purposes of each individual territory.

Andrew MacKinlay: I would like to address the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). Gibraltar had a unique case because it is the only British overseas territory within the European Union. The others are notperhaps they should be, but they are notso this case was unique.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to say that the important issue with regard to the Matthews judgment was the relationship between Gibraltar and the European Union and, in particular, between Gibraltar and the European Parliament. That is why it is right that it should be involved in elections to that Parliament. Other overseas territories would obviously have to be regarded in a different way according to their own constitutional positions.
	This is a sensible and proportionate Bill that seeks to ensure the enfranchisement of the accession states and of Gibraltar. We need to do this in time for the 2004 elections. There is still a considerable amount of work to do if we are to put all the details in place in time for those elections, but I hope that we in the House of Commons will wish the Bill well and support its Third Reading.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Audit and Accountability (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.[Mr. Kemp.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 7th January, be approved.[Mr. Kemp.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 7th January, be approved.[Mr. Kemp.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Mutual Recognition Of Financial Penalties

That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 11079/02 and 14664/02 draft Framework Decision on mutual recognition of financial penalties; and supports the Government's efforts to secure agreement to this Framework Decision. [Mr. Kemp.]
	Question agreed to.

NHS HOSPITALS (WORCESTERSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Kemp.]

Richard Taylor: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise worries about NHS hospital services in Worcestershire. My one great regret is that, as an Independent Member, I must do so from the Opposition Benches. Unlike you, Mr. Speaker, I cannot sit in the middle of the Chamber and address it as one who can agree with the Government when he thinks they are right and with the Opposition when he thinks that they are right.
	I have made it clear that I support the Government's provision of extra money for the NHS, and that I support some of their reformscertainly those relating to devolution. I have grave fears, however. For instance, strategic health authorities only like to pass good news to the Department of Health. I want to tell the Ministerwhom I am very glad to seehow things look from the patient's point of view, not just in Wyre Forest but in other parts of Worcestershire.
	Having read one of the local papers tonight, I must make it clear that I, along with others who agree with me, am not attacking staff. They are working as hard as they can to make an appallingly difficult situation work. Those who introduce changes in the NHS are working with doctors and nurses whose first commitment is to the patient. Whatever tools they are given, they will try to make those tools effective.
	I have not raised this subject because of my own health service agenda, or a particular political party's health service agenda. I have done so purely and simply because a recently published annual audit letter issued a staggering condemnation of hospital managementnot hospital staff. The vice-chairman of the Redditch and Bromsgrove community health councilI am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) is presentsaid of that letter:
	The report is the most appalling I've ever readit's shocking. It's not just the finance, they have to get the running of the hospital right.
	That condemnation does not come from Wyre Forest.
	The criticism is fairly wide-ranging. First there is the financial aspect. The acute hospital trust managed to break even last year with the use of some capital and forecast that it could do the same this year, but it is heading for a 6 million overspend, a large amount of which is due to agency nurses. This year's forecast overspend is 7.2 million.
	The management knew about that. A written answer from the Minister dated 30 October stated that the cost of agency nurses to the health authority was 3.3 million in 200001, 4.3 million in 200102 and 4.3 million up to September last year. The management well recognised the scale of the problem with agency nurses, but they have been completely unable to control it.

Julie Kirkbride: Is not one of the most shocking indictments in the audit letter the 1.87 million in the account which no one had anticipated, including those who signed up for contracts?

Richard Taylor: I am coming to that.
	Let me continue with the criticisms. The next concerns medical manpower management. To my horror, I read that even in 2003 no consultants have job plans to which they and the management have signed up. Before I retired, which is several years ago now, I had a job plan. Those were suggested by the Government years and years ago.
	Another staggering thing is that Worcestershire has the highest medical staffing to work load levels of all acute trusts in England. Why? It is not because the county's surgeons are lazy and not working. I have the figures to prove the work load.
	The number of surgical finished consultant episodes in 19992000 was 44,896. In 200102, it was 30,783, a reduction of one third. Why was that? It was because there was a reduction in staffed beds and in theatre availability, and that comes back to the loss of services and staff following the downgrading of Kidderminster.
	There are other criticisms: the purchasing consortium is not working; management of waiting lists leaves a lot to be desired; and the supplies function and the medicines management function have been criticised. One could go on, but the next crucial criticism is the need to improve communication to staff.
	For a long time, we have heard stories not that we are alarming and undermining staff but that staff are terrified of speaking out because of intimidation and threats from management. At last we have proof of that. I quote from one of the local papers on 28 December last year:
	A senior nurse at Worcestershire Royal Hospital claims lives are being put at risk because of staff shortages.
	The nurse said mistakes were regularly being made because they were working in what she described as 'intolerable conditions'.
	The experienced member of staff did not want to be named because, she said, nurses have been threatened with dismissal if they approached the Press.
	But she said morale among nurses was currently at an all-time low and many were considering quitting the profession.
	The next criticism relates to the private finance initiative that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) mentioned. I was staggered to read that the payment for the new PFI in Worcester is increasing annually by 1.87 million. That has to run for another 29 years. At last, we have an admission that there was supposed to be a 3 million saving annually from bed cuts. We claimed that the PFI meant bed cuts for ages. It was always denied but we have it in black and white from the district auditor.
	There is another criticism. Staff have been telling us that the design is awful, the corridors are too narrow, and the ability to observe patients in the wards is not adequate. The district auditor says that the layout of the new hospital requires additional staffing.
	The annual audit letter condemns the management. It vindicates in passing all the work that Professor Allyson Pollock and her colleagues at University College, London have done on the PFI, particularly the report on the Worcestershire PFI entitled, Deficits Before Patients, which was so denigrated and castigated by the health authority and the NHS executive in Birmingham at the time.
	Other sources of criticism other than the annual audit letter are general practitioners. From all parts of the county, GPs are complaining. Red alerts are frequent. It is amazing that, to make it sound better, the hospital trust has suddenly redesignated red alerts as yellow two alerts, which strikes me as an interesting sort of wheeze. I have a quote from an Evesham GP:
	They cut off the flesh, then the bone, and they're now down to the marrow.
	The sad thing about all this is that it was foreseen. In November 1997, a great number of GPs and consultantsincluding not only those from Wyre Forestdescribed the hospital review as follows:
	Although it is a clinical review, it is driven by costs. But
	on meeting the health authority
	they had no costs to give us. There was a strong feeling of no confidence because the plans are unworkable.
	The lack of beds will mean overspill going to hospitals in Birmingham or elsewhere.
	That is the end of my criticisms. I want now to be positive, and to try to suggest what can be done, because I am here not for any personal political gain, but to try to help the people of the whole of Worcestershire. First, I have a plea. Please do not cut beds: either the few remaining beds at Kidderminster, or those in the community hospitals. They perform a vital service, relieving the pressure on acute beds and allowing the acute service to discharge patients that little bit quicker.

Peter Luff: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. There is considerable concern in Evesham, expressed this week in the Evesham Journal, about the consequence of the primary care trust deficit for beds in the community hospitals in Evesham, and, indeed, in Pershore. I hope that he will emphasise the point that community hospitals have a huge contribution to make in relieving the very real problems that exist at Worcestershire royal infirmary.

Richard Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which underlines my comments about the importance of intermediate care beds.
	In addition to my plea for the Government not to cut beds, I want to emphasise the fact that we must have new management. Doctors and nurses are continually praised in the letters that I get. The annual audit letter points out that the current management has failed, and that it has had two years to work at it since the trusts merged. There have been two votes of no confidence in the management by large majorities of consultantsa point that allows me to digress for a few moments on the relationships between doctors and managers throughout the health service. Ministers in the Department of Health have played down this point, which I have mentioned before. However, a British Medical Journal leader of 18 January described the tension between doctors and managers in these terms:
	The tension may reflect real and important differences in the way that doctors and managers see their roles and responsibilities, which means that important issues, such as accountability, the use of guidelines, targets, and finance are approached in quite different ways.
	Because the problem is so real, at the end of March the British Medical Journal and the Health Service Journal will publish issues completely devoted to it.
	I have another suggestion. We welcome the diagnostic and treatment centre that will be provided at Kidderminster, because that, too, will ease the load on the acute hospital. We also welcome the proposal for an orthopaedic centre, which will help even more by taking patients not only from Worcestershire, but from other parts of the west midlands. Whatever else is developed at Kidderminster will ease the situation in the whole county, and nurses will come to staff it. We have already seen, through the very welcome renal unit that was developed at Kidderminsterthanks greatly to the Government and to the Department of Healththat nurses have flocked back to staff that unit. So if we develop the diagnostic and treatment centre and the orthopaedic centre, nurses will come back, which will ease the agency nurse problem for the whole county, and ease the load on the acute hospitals.
	The final point is that the Department of Health is about to produce a document on configuring hospital services. I will hypothesise, and express hope, about what it may include. I believe that it will recognise that big is not always necessarily the best, and that local services are absolutely vital. Local emergency centres are being tried in places such as Penzance and Bishop Auckland to take the strain off the larger hospitals, while keeping services local. Something like that is needed in Wyre Forest and Worcestershire to take the pressure off other services in the county.
	The reasons for that are incontrovertible, and I shall give some specific examples. Not so long ago, an ambulance went to the house of a man with diabetes whose wife could not rouse him because his sugar level had gone too low. The ambulance men could not rouse him so, purely and simply for an injection of glucose into a vein, they had to take him 20 miles. That is ridiculous.
	Minor fractures that cannot be coped with in the minor injuries unit clutter up the accident and emergency department at Worcester. I had a letter this morning concerning an 87-year-old lady who had collapsed in church. Her 88-year-old friend went with her on the ambulance to Worcester, where she was sorted out. There were no beds and that lady could not be admitted, so they were told to go home. There were no arrangements made for them and they had to make their own way home.
	I am appealing for a change in management, no bed closures, an acceleration of the diagnostic and treatment centre and a look at the advantages of starting a local emergency centre for Wyre Forest to benefit the whole county.

Michael Foster: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this welcomeand perhaps unexpectedopportunity to speak about NHS hospitals in Worcestershire. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) on bringing to the House the subject of the importance of NHS care in our county.
	On Friday evening, I took it upon myself to do a spot check on the Worcestershire Royal hospital. I went to the reception in the main foyer and asked to see the duty manager, at which point I was taken around the wards that I wanted to see. I saw for myself, at first hand, some of the issues that had been making the headlines in the local papers. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that there was one manager with me and that I was left to talk to staff and patients perfectly freely. They gave me their personal views of the position of the hospital, which seem to have made the headlines in a local paper this evening.
	The hon. Gentleman said that he aimed no criticism at nurses and doctors who are working so hard in the hospital; neither do I, and I did not infer that the hon. Gentleman did. In my press release, I said:
	I know these comments are not directed at nursing staff, but they feel it.
	That is the point that I should like to reinforce to the hon. Gentleman. When criticisms are made of the hospital, they affect nursing staff on the front line. Those are the words of the nurses to whom I spoke on Friday; they are not my words. When we debate the future of health care in our county, we should be careful not to give the impression that our health service is not doing the best it can for patients. If we are going to have a go at managementas seems to be the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's casewe must do so on specific grounds and not in a general way that can be interpreted by friends, neighbours and those who work outside the hospital as something of which the nurses and doctors should be ashamed.
	When I was talking to patients, it was clear that they had the utmost regard for the nurses and doctors at the hospital and for the work that they are doing
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Caplin.]

Derek Foster: Patients go out of their way to praise the cleanliness of the new hospital. I mention that because my mother was a nurse and she has a thing about the cleanliness of hospitals in her day, as she would describe it. I spoke to a patient whose wife was also a former nurse and she had the same bee in her bonnet: cleanliness really counted for something. That patient had to occupy a bed at the Royal Worcestershire although he was actually waiting for a bed at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, Birmingham, so that he could receive the next stage of his treatment. That should not be taken as criticism of Worcestershire's ability to cope, but of the wider health economy of the region.
	The hon. Member for Wyre Forest made some valid points about management and, on Friday, I shall take up with the chairman, Mr. O'Riordan, the issues about gagging staff. That is a serious point and it should be addressed by the hospital. However, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened the new private finance initiative hospital, he held a meeting with staff behind closed doors and I suspect that they said exactly what they felt. I am sure that none of them would have been threatened by the management for speaking to the Secretary of State about their concerns.
	In relation to the district auditor's letter and the financial position of the acute trust, the projected overspend of about 6 million is worrying. However, the problem will not be relieved by a 20 per cent. cut in health spending, nor by refusing to back increases in taxation to pay for resources for the health service. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, however: agency costs were much higher than budgeted. I think he said that they were 7.5 million higher than expected, so they could be responsible for the 6 million deficit.
	However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to congratulate the trust on taking seriously the points raised about agency costs. It has negotiated a 10 per cent. reduction in agency fees with the British Nursing Association, which I am sure that he welcomes. My concern is that the extra resources going to the health service are giving a green light to ripping off the NHS, which should be deplored by everybody.
	The hon. Gentleman should also congratulate the trust on using NHS Professionalsan initiative that has freed up more people to undertake agency work. A local NHS Professionals manager has been appointed to oversee and promote the use of more temporary staff from that agency. What would happen to patient care at the hospital if budget limitations meant that agency nurses could not be used? Awful though it is to have an increased deficit due to the use of agency care, there is no real alternative for NHS hospitals unless permanent, trained nursing staff are in place. Getting the full complement of staff to service the hospital so that it can work at full capacity must be the aim for all of us.
	The reason the hospital cannot recruit enough staff is that it cannot draw on a big enough pool: not enough people were trained 10 years ago to fill our current vacancies. However, I applaud the hospital for the efforts that it is making to recruit extra staff.
	The hospital trust has sent me a briefing note, detailing the number of vacancies that it hopes to fill in the near future. The hon. Gentleman did not mention it in his contribution, but I am sure that he would welcome the fact that 30 international nurses commenced their adaptation programme in the week beginning 20 January this year, that 31 student nurses who qualified at University college, Worcester in March have expressed an interest in working in the trust, that 24 nurses from India will be joining the trust in the spring, that 10 nurses have been recruited locally since December 2002, and that 41 student nurses have already applied for jobs in the trust from the August school.
	The trust launched a new recruitment campaign in the local media in December. That campaign has continued into the new year. By 17 January, the trust was processing 123 application forms submitted because of those advertisements. That welcome initiative by the trust should be applauded but, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman did not mention it in his contribution. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Derek Foster: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) says that that is not enough. I accept that it is not enough. I can say with all integrity that we want more, but I will not say, We want more, but vote for less cash to pay for the services. That is a matter of integrity. I will stand up and tell it straight. The hon. Lady may not like to have a reputation for being straight on this issue, but I shall certainly conduct myself with integrity.

Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman says that he is going to be straight with the House, but I regret the party political note that he has injected into the debate. This matter should be above party politics. He knows that there is not a single shred of truth in the accusation that he made several minutes ago that the Conservative party would cut expenditure on the health service by 20 per cent. That is integrity!

Derek Foster: I recall a comment from the Opposition Treasury Front-Bench spokesman, who said that the Conservative party was conducting a root-and-branch review, with a view to making a 20 per cent. cut in expenditure in all Departments. I cannot remember saying in my contribution that the Conservatives planned a 20 per cent. cut; I merely pointed out that a 20 per cent. in spending would not help. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) may have a guilty conscience about that, but it is not for me to worry about it.
	I applaud the local hospital trust on its ability to try to be creative in recruiting nursing staff. I welcome the new crche that was opened last year in Worcester.

Julie Kirkbride: It is about time.

Derek Foster: I fully appreciate that it is about time.

Julie Kirkbride: What about the Alex?

Derek Foster: I have good news for the hon. Lady: work is under way for a new crche at the Alexandra hospital, and a new multi-faith centre is almost complete, as is the refurbishment of the accident and emergency department and the ear, nose and throat and fracture clinics.
	There will always be a call for more resources for our health service, whether in community hospitals, which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest mentioned, or in acute ones. I understand that a number of beds are being used in the acute hospital by patients who should be served in the community. That has been an ongoing issue with social services. I am pleased that things are moving in the right direction, and community hospitals have a big role to play in that respect. Although I support the call to protect the Eveshams, Pershores and the Malverns of this worldthe NHS hospitals in WorcestershireI always have to point out to colleagues in the House that, somehow, the means has to be found to pay for those hospitals.
	I shall meet the chairman of the trust on Friday. I will also meet the community health council later that day. I shall take on board the comments that have been made to me by the patients and the staff of the hospital. I am concerned about some capacity issues. I have publicly expressed a concern that the Aconbury wing at Newtown hospital in Worcester would be threatened somehow. That capacity is needed for Worcester and Worcestershire to ensure that that hospital can cope with patient intake. I made that plea to the former chairman, Mr. Harold Musgrove, and I will restate my view that that hospital wing needs to be kept open.
	Does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), agree that the issue of agency nurses is a real concern for the Department? What will be done, especially with regard to the article in The Sunday Times yesterday, which pointed out the soaring cost of agency nurses within the national health service?
	As I said, it was a surprising pleasure to be able to contribute to the debate. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest on raising the issue on the Floor of the House. He ought, however, to provide a more mixed message when he describes the health service in the county to our local media. He is right to point out the failings: I agree with him and join him in pointing out what those failings are. At times, however, he should also promote the good work that is done in our health service, so that he is seen as balanced in his approach. I will take it on myself to do exactly the same for my constituents and take a balanced approach. I will praise what is good and criticise what is bad, but, most of all, I will continue to vote for more resources for our health service, as the only way that it will get better is through investment and reform.

Julie Kirkbride: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) unexpectedly in this great debate. It is exciting to have a few moments to make a contribution.
	Many of the comments of the hon. Member for Worcester were sadly somewhat disingenuous. While we all support the staff of the national health service and their hard work, there is no doubt that a proper Worcestershire Member of Parliament would feel strongly that we get a very unfair share of the national health service cake. Certainly, we get a very unfair share per capita of the national cake, which is demonstrably true, although the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), is saying from a sedentary position that it is not so. I cannot believe that she does not share the experience of my constituents, as we share the same per capita funding. Every constituent of mine who needs a hip operation, a cataract operation or any elective surgery that is common to our national service will, by dint of living in Worcestershire, have to wait for one year, whereas other people, such as those on the Birmingham waiting list, will have a shorter wait. I can only assume that she does not read her post if she does not realise how acute the waiting list problem is in Worcestershire.

Jacqui Smith: Is it due to money?

Julie Kirkbride: I will not take sedentary interventions. If the Minister of State would like to comment, we will be interested to hear whether she is prepared to stand up for her constituents.
	The hon. Member for Worcester also raised the issue of our community hospitals, about which I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) feels stronglyhe has several in my constituency, and I have one in mine. The hon. Member for Worcester seemed to say that, if there was not enough money for community hospitals, that was a question of resources. I remind him that those community hospitals existed under a Conservative Government whom he takes no opportunity not to criticise for their spending on the national health service. He also completely distorts the truth about the spending of a future Conservative Government. Nevertheless, those hospitals existed under a Conservative Government, and we expect them to exist under a Labour Government and their spending should increase, bearing in mind that our national insurance contributions will go up in April by 1 per cent.
	We are very worried about the crisisI stress that it is a crisisin health service funding in Worcestershire. My NHS trust has a debt of 6 million and rising, and my primary care trust has a debt of 2.5 million. Clearly, the health service management in the region has told them that they must balance the books by the next financial year. The financial crisis in the PCT in the south of Worcestershire amounts to 5 billion of debt, hence the worry about the closure of community hospitals as the only fixed assets that can be sold to meet those debts. Worcestershire has a very serious problem, which manifests itself in a variety of ways.
	In my area, whether eye care should be provided on a local basis is a growing problem. It is welcome that, currentlyI am sure that the Minister of State agrees, as she is noddingwe have eye care clinics in the Princess of Wales hospital in Bromsgrove and at the Alexandra hospital in Redditch, yet those are under threat and the services are under review. We are very fearful, because of the 7 million debt, that those services will be withdrawn and based in Kidderminster and Worcester alone. However, because of their eye problems and inability to see, those people should not have to travel long distances. They should be able to go to local eye care clinics. However, because of the deficit that the trust is experiencing, they might not come about. [Interruption.] The Whip rightly says that I must give the Minister the opportunity to speak, but we are very concerned by the 1.87 million increase in the cost of the private finance initiative contract, as made clear in the latest auditor's report.
	When the Minister responds, we would be grateful if he would explain why suddenly, in Worcestershire alone, we now have yellow two alerts instead of red alerts. Will he be kind enough to explain what a yellow alert is and what the difference is between that and a red alert? The GPs in the county are mightily confused.

David Lammy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) on securing a debate on NHS hospitals in Worcestershire. I am sure that all hon. Members are aware of his keen interest in all health issues within and beyond his constituency. The local issues that he raised today have clearly been of great interest to the Worcestershire community.
	The hon. Gentleman briefly mentioned good news in Worcestershire, and it is right that I spend a few moments talking about the good things that are happening in the hospitals in Worcestershire. The county is served by three acute hospitals employing 4,500 people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) pointed out, are overwhelmingly doing a good job. They are managed collectively by the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.
	The largest of those hospitals is the Worcester royal hospital, a newly built PFI hospital that opened in March 2002 at a cost of 95 million. That new hospital brings together services previously scattered between the three sites in Worcestershire, with careful planning placing interacting departments as closely to one another as possible. A good example is the siting of the accident and emergency department next to the critical care unit, radiology and operating theatres. That resulted from the contributions of doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to the planning and consultation process.
	When the new hospital opened, it required the transfer of 300 patients to the new hospital, in complete safety, over just two weekends, ending an era of patients being housed in long open wards. Rooms in the new hospital have a maximum of four beds, with a high proportion of single or two-bed rooms. All rooms have en-suite facilities, providing an improvement in patient privacy. That arrangement of rooms gives greater flexibility for ward managers to provide specialised care for patients with similar conditions. Rooms are grouped together in virtual wards managed by a modern matron. The hospital provides vanguard services and local people are rightly proud of that. It incorporates nine operating theatres, a large accident and emergency department and critical care unit, and specialist radiology and scanning facilities.
	The hon. Gentleman often raises the subject of Kidderminster hospital and did so again today. It is important to focus on the positive developments there for the benefit of both the staff who work there and the patients who use the facilities.
	Kidderminster has received 13 million in investment to develop a state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment centre and an ambulatory care centre, which is due for completion this autumn. As well as maintaining existing patient services, Kidderminster will have a modern minor injuries unit, a primary care centre, out-patients clinics, operating theatres and treatment rooms with 23-hour recovery facilities. It will also have radiology, including X-ray and computerised tomography scanner, ultrasound equipment and therapy treatments, including physiotherapy, not to mention 20 GP medical beds, rehabilitation and step-down beds, dedicated cancer services, maternity services and a new 600,000 satellite renal dialysis unit. That is not a hospital in decline.

Richard Taylor: As always, the Minister emphasises the positive, and I agree about the benefits of a diagnostic and treatment centre, but he does not mention the losses. I know that they happened in the past, but he must realise that people lost every acute bed and a full accident and emergency department. We would rather have what we had than the 16 millionnot 13 millionthat some of us think is being wasted on a block that is only six years old. He must remember what we have lost.

David Lammy: Money is never wasted if people's health care improves. Health economies change. The hon. Gentleman says that he is concerned about something that happened in the past. As a result of the services and facilities that I have outlined, the people of Kidderminster have a bright future in terms of their local health economy. I will deal with the number of beds, but I believe that those people are being served properly. I ask him to be careful and considered in the language that he uses.
	The Alexandra hospital in Redditch has 340 beds and 20 day-case beds. It has six modern operating theatres. There is a recently completed day unit with two theatres and an endoscopy unit. The accident and emergency department has recently been extended under the national modernisation programme, of which the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), is proud, to improve the services provided. All major specialities and sub-specialities are provided other than cardiac surgery and neurosurgery.
	From April this year, the NHS will receive a massive extra financial investment for the modernisation of both NHS facilities and systems of health care. Primary care trust revenue allocations for Worcestershire will rise to 426 million in 200304 and reach 510 million by 200506. The Government are intent on continuing to put that investment into the Worcestershire health economy over the next three years. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) talks about under-investment. She should go back to the record of the previous Administration because therein lies the problem that the Government are intent on correcting.
	Plans for how those finances will be used locally are being developed in partnership across organisations as part of the local delivery plans due for completion by the end of March. Those plans, moving on from the detailed three-year capacity plans completed in November, set the operational planning for the local delivery of the challenging national targets and milestones in the NHS plan.

Julie Kirkbride: I have been listening with interest to the description of our local health services. Although I appreciate many of the Minister's points, he has missed the point of much of this evening's debate. Will he tell us the difference between yellow two alert and red alert?

David Lammy: The hon. Lady should knowbut may notthat it is for local trusts and strategic health authorities to advise on local issues affecting the capacity of their services.
	On the issue of beds, which was raised by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, there has been no substantial reduction in the number of beds in Worcestershire. It is plain wrong to suggest that that number has gone down. There are approximately 1,400 acute beds and community-based beds available across Worcestershire, compared with 1,387 in 1998-99. The new hospital in Worcester centres all acute services on a single site, thus improving efficiency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester said, the important issue for health services in Worcestershire is not the number of beds, but the appropriateness of the care delivered to patients.

Peter Luff: Is the Minister guaranteeing that there will be no reduction in bed numbers in the Worcestershire health economy, either in the primary care trust community hospitals or the Aconbury wing of the Worcestershire royal hospital, which the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) rightly emphasised in his contribution?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will know that that is a matter for the local strategic health authority and others engaged in providing services in Worcester. As with other parts of the country, it will depend on demographics and pertinent local issues. However, it is wrong to suggest that there has been a reduction in beds, as it is wrong to talk down the NHS in Worcestershire. There are financial issues that the strategic health authorities and others are now dealing with, but there are many good things happening as well.
	There is no denying that the Worcestershire health economy has had a troubled past, with significant financial and service concerns over many years since well before 1997. However, it is not fair to characterise the service changes in Worcestershire as financially driven, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest attempted to do. The aim of Investing in Excellence, the strategy of the then Worcestershire health authority, was to sustain and improve the quality of health services for patients across the whole of Worcestershire. The decision to remove blue-light A and E services from Kidderminster was a clinical one, based on very real concerns about maintaining high standards of clinical safety within three closely situated A and E departments. Opposition Members have often tried to revisit the decision on blue-light services, but the Government insist that we must concentrate on the future and the many other services that the people of Kidderminster need.
	The minor injuries unit at Kidderminster hospital is one of the most successful of its type, and has well-developed protocols with the ambulance trust and other sites to ensure that patients are taken to the right emergency department immediately. A key indicator for emergency care
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.